This meta-analysis is the first to provide a quantitative synthesis of empirical evaluations of mathematical intervention programs implemented in secondary schools for students with learning disabilities and mathematics difficulties. Included studies used a treatment-control group design. A total of 19 experimental and quasi-experimental studies containing 20 independent samples met study inclusion criteria. Results of a random effects model analysis indicated that mathematical interventions influence mathematics outcomes (g = 0.37, 95% confidence interval [0.18, 0.56]) for students with learning disabilities and mathematics difficulties. In addition, instructional time moderated the relation between mathematics interventions and student learning. Limitations of the study, future directions for research, and implications for practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerS.GerstenR.LeeD. S. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73. doi:10.1086/499715
2.
BellgA. J.ResnickB.MinicucciD. S.OgedegbeG.ErnstD.BorrelliB.. . . CzajkowskiS. (2004). Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: Best practices and recommendations from the NIH behavior change consortium. Health Psychology, 23, 443–451. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.23.5.443
3.
BerkeleyS.ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995–2006: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 423–436. doi:10.1177/0741932509355988
4.
BloomH. S.HillC. J.BlackA. R.LipseyM. W. (2008). Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1, 289–328. doi:10.1080/1934574080240072
5.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, England: Wiley.
6.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2011). Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 2.2.064) [Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
7.
BormanG. D.HewesG. M.OvermanL. T.BrownS. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125–230. doi:10.3102/00346543073002125
8.
*BottgeB. A.HasselbringT. S. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children, 59, 556–566. doi:10.1177/001440299305900608
9.
*BottgeB. A.TolandM. D.GassawayL.ButlerM.ChooS.GriffenA. K.MaX. (2015). Impact of enhanced anchored instruction in inclusive math classrooms. Exceptional Children, 81, 158–175. doi:10.1177/0014402914551742
10.
*ButlerF. M.MillerS. P.CrehanK.BabbittB.PierceT. (2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 99–111. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00066
11.
*CalhoonM. B.FuchsL. S. (2003). The effects of peer-assisted learning strategies and curriculum-based measurement on the mathematics performance of secondary students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 235–245. doi:10.1177/07419325030240040601
12.
CardN. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New York, NY: Guilford.
13.
CawleyJ. F.ParmarR. S.YanW.MillerJ. H. (1998). Arithmetic computation performance of students with learning disabilities: Implications for curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 68–74.
14.
ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S.FuchsD.LambertW.HamlettC. (2011). The cognitive and academic profiles of reading and mathematics learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 79–95. doi:10.1177/0022219410393012
15.
CortiellaC. (2011). The state of learning disabilities. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
16.
DennisM. S.SharpE.ChovanesJ.ThomasA.BurnsR. M.CusterB.ParkJ. (2016). A meta-analysis of empirical research on teaching students with mathematics learning difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31, 156–168. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12107
17.
DosseyJ.McCroneS.HalvorsenK. (2016). Mathematics education in the United States 2016: A capsule summary book written for the Thirteenth International Congress on Mathematical Education (ICME-13). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
18.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
19.
Every Student Succeeds Act of2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95, § 1177. Stat. (2015).
20.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L. (2013). Intervention effects for students with comorbid forms of learning disability understanding the needs of nonresponders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 534–548. doi:10.1177/0022219412468889
21.
FuchsL. S.SchumacherR. F.SterbaS. K.LongJ.NamkungJ.MaloneA.. . . ChangasP. (2014). Does working memory moderate the effects of fraction intervention? An aptitude-treatment interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 499–514. doi:10.1037/a0034341
22.
GearyD. CHoardM. K.Byrd-CravenJ.NugentLNumteeC. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematics learning disability. Child Development, 78, 1343–1359. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01069.x
23.
GerstenR.ChardD. J.JayanthiM.BakerS. K.MorphyP.FlojoJ. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242. doi:10.3102/0034654309334431
24.
HedgesL. V. (1982). Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 490–499. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.92.2.490
25.
HedgesL. V.PigottT. D. (2004). The power of statistical tests for moderators in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 9, 426–445. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.426
26.
HughesE. M.WitzelB. S.RiccominiP. J.FriesK. M.KanyongoG. Y. (2014). A meta-analysis of algebra interventions for learners with disabilities and struggling learners. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 15, 36–47.
27.
HuntJ. H.VasquezE.III. (2014). Effects of ratio strategies intervention on knowledge of ratio equivalence for students with learning disability. The Journal of Special Education, 48, 180–190. doi:10.1177/0022466912474102
28.
*HutchinsonN. L. (1993). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on algebra problem solving of adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 34–63. doi:10.2307/1511158
29.
HwangJ.RiccominiP. J. (2016). Enhancing mathematical problem solving for secondary students with or at risk of learning disabilities: A literature review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31, 169–181. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12105
30.
*IvesB. (2007). Graphic organizers applied to secondary algebra instruction for students with learning disorders. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 110–118. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00235.x
31.
*JitendraA. K.DupuisD. N.StarJ. R.RodriguezM. C. (2016). The effects of schema-based instruction on the proportional thinking of students with mathematics difficulties with and without reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 354–367. doi:10.1177/0022219414554228
32.
*JitendraA. K.HarwellM. R.DupuisD. N.KarlS. R. (2017). A randomized trial of the effects of schema-based instruction on proportional problem solving for students with mathematics problem-solving difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 50, 322–336. doi:10.1177/0022219416629646
33.
KarlssonP.BergmarkA. (2015). Compared with what? An analysis of control-group types in Cochrane and Campbell reviews of psychosocial treatment efficacy with substance use disorders. Addiction, 110, 420–428. doi:10.1111/add.12799
34.
*KellyB.GerstenR.CarnineD. (1990). Student error patterns as a function of curriculum design: Teaching fractions to remedial high school students and high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 23–29. doi:10.1177/002221949002300108
35.
KepesS.BanksG. C.OhI. S. (2014). Avoiding bias in publication bias research: The value of “null” findings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 183–203. doi:10.1007/s10869-012-9279-0
36.
*KonoldK. B. (2004). Using the concrete-representational-abstract teaching sequence to increase algebra problem-solving skills (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAT 3143383)
37.
KroesbergenE. H.Van LuitJ. E. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs a meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97–114. doi:10.1177/07419325030240020501
38.
*LambertM. A. (1996). Teaching students with learning disabilities to solve word-problems: A comparison of a cognitive strategy and a traditional textbook method (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 9639550)
39.
LipseyM. W.PuzioK.YunC.HebertM. A.Steinka-FryK.ColeM. W.. . . BusickM. D. (2012). Translating the statistical representation of the effects of education interventions into more readily interpretable forms (Publication No. NCSER 2013-3000). Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20133000/pdf/20133000.pdf
40.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
41.
MacciniP.McNaughtonD.RuhlK. L. (1999). Algebra instruction for students with learning disabilities: Implications from a research review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 113–126. doi:10.2307/1511270
42.
MacciniP.MulcahyC. A.WilsonM. G. (2007). A follow-up of mathematics interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 58–74. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00231.x
43.
*ManaloE.BunnellJ. K.StillmanJ. A. (2000). The use of process mnemonics in teaching students with mathematics learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 137–156. doi:10.2307/1511142
44.
MaritaS.HordC. (2017). Review of mathematics interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40, 29–40. doi:10.1177/0731948716657495
45.
MazzoccoM. M. M. (2007). Defining and differentiating mathematical learning disabilities and difficulties. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM. M. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 29–47). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
46.
MillerS. P.HudsonP. J. (2007). Using evidence-based practices to build mathematics competence related to conceptual, procedural, and declarative knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 47–57. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.0023.x
47.
MisquittaR. (2011). A review of the literature: Fraction instruction for struggling learners in mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 109–119. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00330.x
48.
*MuonekeA. F. (2001). The effects of a question and action strategy on the mathematical word problem-solving skills of students with learning problems in mathematics (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAT 3008402)
49.
MyersJ. A.WangJ.BrownellM. T.GagnonC. J. (2015). Mathematics interventions for students with learning disabilities (LD) in secondary school: A review of the literature. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 13, 207–235.
50.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
51.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
52.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standard in mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
53.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: Final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
54.
*RodgersL. D. (2011). Examining the implementation of a problem-based learning and traditional hybrid model of instruction in remedial mathematics classes designed for state testing preparation of eleventh grade students (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAT 3532763)
55.
RosenshineB. V.BerlinerD. C. (1978). Academic engaged time. British Journal of Teacher Education, 4, 3–16. doi:10.1080/0260747780040102
56.
RothsteinH. R.SuttonA. J.BorensteinM. (Eds.). (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustment. New York, NY: Wiley.
57.
ScammaccaN. K.RobertsG.VaughnS.StuebingK. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in Grades 4–12. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 369–390. doi:10.1177/0022219413504995
58.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.BerkeleyS.GraetzJ. E. (2010). Do special education interventions improve learning of secondary content? A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 437–449. doi.org/10.1177/0741932508327465
59.
ShinM.BryantD. P. (2015). Fraction interventions for students struggling to learn mathematics: A research synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 374–387. doi:10.1177/0741932515572910
60.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68, 277–321. doi:10.3102/00346543068003277
61.
WagnerM.MarderC.BlackorbyJ.CardosoD. (2002). The children we serve: The demographic characteristics of elementary and middle school students with disabilities and their households. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
62.
WagnerM.NewmanL.CametoR.LevineP.GarzaN. (2006). An overview of findings from Wave 2 of the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pdf/20063004.pdf
63.
*WalkerD. W.PoteetJ. A. (1989–1990). A comparison of two methods of teaching mathematics story problem-solving with learning disabled students. National Forum of Special Education Journal, 1, 44–51.
64.
WanzekJ.VaughnS.ScammaccaN.GatlinB.WalkerM.CapinP. (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of Tier 2 type reading interventions in Grades K–3. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 551–576. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9321-7
65.
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, 889–912. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9179-5
66.
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, 437–447. doi:10.1177/0022219414564220
67.
WeiX.LenzK. B.BlackorbyJ. (2013). Math growth trajectories of students with disabilities: Disability category, gender, racial, and socioeconomic status differences from ages 7 to 17. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 154–165. doi:10.1177/0741932512448253
WitzelB. S. (Ed.) (2016). Bridging the gap between arithmetic and algebra. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
70.
*WitzelB. S.MercerC. D.MillerM. D. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 121–131. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00068
71.
*WoodwardJ.BaxterJ.RobinsonR. (1999). Rules and reasons: Decimal instruction for academically low achieving students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 15–24. doi:10.1207/sldrp1401_2
72.
*WoodwardJ.BrownC. (2006). Meeting the curricular needs of academically low-achieving students in middle grade mathematics. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 151–159. doi:10.1177/00224669060400030301
73.
WoolleyM. E.RoseR. A.MercadoM.OrthnerD. K. (2013). Teachers teaching differently: A qualitative study of implementation fidelity to professional development. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1, 55–68. doi:10.11114/jets.v1i1.48
74.
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, 207–225. doi:10.1177/002246699903200402
75.
*XinY. P.JitendraA. K.Deatline-BuchmanA. (2005). The effects of mathematical word problem-solving instruction on middle school students with learning problems. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 181–192. doi:10.117 7/00224669050390030501
76.
ZhangD.XinY. P. (2012). A follow-up meta-analysis for word-problem-solving interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Educational Research, 105, 303–318. doi:10.1080/00220671.2011.627397
77.
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, 97–111. doi:10.1177/0731948712444277
