No abstract

The purpose of this review is to determine the evidence base classification of schema-based instruction (SBI) as an intervention to improve word problem-solving outcomes in mathematics for students with learning or mathematics disabilities in Grades K–12. Using the Council for Exceptional Children’s quality indicators (QIs) and standards, we reviewed both single-case and group design studies to classify the evidence of SBI. Results of this review indicate that SBI is a potentially evidence-based practice (EBP) for students with learning disabilities. Implications and directions for research and practice are presented.

Students with learning disabilities struggle to acquire essential mathematical concepts and skills, especially at the secondary level. One effective approach to improving secondary math performance supported by research is the concrete-to-representational-to-abstract (CRA) sequence of instruction. Although CRA is an evidenced-based instructional practice, it is somewhat complicated for teachers to implement in their day-to-day instruction.To better assist implementation of the CRA, an instructional approach with the mnemonic CRA-MATH was developed as a flexible roadmap to help math teachers better address student deficits using the CRA sequence of instruction. The purpose of this article is to describe the seven-step strategy used to guide curricular CRA modifications in secondary mathematics.

The present study investigated 90 elementary teachers' ability to identify two systematic error patterns in subtraction and then prescribe an instructional focus. Presented with two sets of 20 completed subtraction problems comprised of basic facts, computation, and word problems representative of two students' math performance, participants were asked to examine each incorrect subtraction problem and describe the errors. Participants were subsequently asked which type of error they would address first during math instruction to correct students' misconceptions. An analysis of the data indicated teachers were able to describe specific error patterns. However, they did not base their instructional focus on the error patterns identified, and more than half of the teachers chose to address basic subtraction facts first during instruction regardless of error type. Limitations of the study and implications for practice are discussed.

No abstract