504206

research-article2013

LDQXXX10.1177/0731948713504206Learning Disability QuarterlyOrosco

Article

Word Problem Strategy for Latino English

Language Learners at Risk for Math
Disabilities

Learning Disability Quarterly

2014, Vol 37(1) 4553
Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0731948713504206
ldq.sagepub.com

Michael J. Orosco, PhD1

Abstract
English Language Learners (ELLs) at risk for math disabilities (MD) are challenged in solving word problems for numerous
reasons such as (a) learning English as a second language, (b) limited experience using math vocabulary, and (c) lack of
strategies to improve word-problem-solving skills. As a result of these difficulties, ELLs may not only need math support
but also oral language and reading development assistance. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness
of a math comprehension strategy procedure based on a dynamic assessment (DA) framework. The strategy provided
scaffolding support based on the students reading and language comprehension levels. A multiple baseline was used to
assess 6 third-grade Latino ELLs at risk for MD. As compared with baseline, the strategy increased problem-solving ability
for all participants. All students level of performance was maintained during follow-up sessions. Results suggest that a focus
on comprehension strategies may help facilitate math skills development for ELLs at risk for MD.
Keywords
content-area instruction, instructional strategies, single-subject methods, research design or utilization, at risk, thinking/
cognition, education, Teacher
Although publications aimed at improving instruction for
English language learners (ELLs) has grown within the past
decade (e.g., Crdenas-Hagan, Carlson, & Pollard-Durodola,
2007; Mathes, Pollard-Durodola, Crdenas-Hagan, LinanThompson, & Vaughn, 2007; Pollard-Durodola & Simmons,
2009), to date there is surprisingly little research on assistive
instruction with teachers of ELLs on English language
development in content areas such as math (Janzen, 2008).
Further instructional support that improves math comprehension for ELLs is still needed. However, lower oral language proficiency in English (e.g., English vocabulary skills
and content knowledge) is often overlooked as a part of this
added instruction (Goldenberg, 2011). Research indicates
that although basic math skills such as computation are
taught well enough for ELLs to perform as well as their
native English-speaking peers, teachers are not showing
ELLs how to grasp specific oral language development (i.e.,
math vocabulary and concepts) that impacts word-problemsolving comprehension, at proficiency levels equivalent to
native English speakers (Orosco, Swanson, OConnor, &
Lussier, 2013). Well-developed oral proficiency in English
may be a critical step to improving word-problem-solving
skills for ELLs (Orosco et al., 2013). Specifically, English
vocabulary knowledge, listening comprehension, and the
ability to manage contextual aspects of language (i.e., providing direct and explicit instruction with math terminology

and concepts) may need to be linked to improving comprehension (Rupley & Nichols, 2005), especially when developing word-problem-solving skills.
Also, elementary school teachers are particularly challenged and need to summon extra resources because of the
range of instructional needs of ELLs for whom math content in a second language is more arduous due to limited (a)
experiences in vocabulary development, (b) prior math content knowledge, and (c) strategies to improve word-problemsolving skills. In addition, students at risk for math
disabilities (MD) may need more intensive, individualized,
or small-group instruction that is highly structured and
explicit to mediate word-problem-solving content successfully. Furthermore, given the multistep process of the wordproblem-solving process, strategy instruction continues to
be an important intervention approach to improve solution
accuracy.
The literature has proposed a set of instructional math
practices that have been validated by research on English
native speakers with or at risk for MD. First, math instruction
1

University of California, Riverside, USA

Corresponding Author:
Michael J. Orosco, Area of Special Education, Graduate School of
Education, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA.
Email: michael.orosco@ucr.edu

Downloaded from ldq.sagepub.com at Massey University Library on April 8, 2015

46

Learning Disability Quarterly 37(1)

Table 1. Four-Level Math Vocabulary Modification Procedure.

Level
Basic (Level 1)
Intermediate (Level 2)
Advance intermediate (Level 3)
Technical vocabulary (Level 4)

Description

Example

Math terms used in everyday

conversation
Math terms not directly associated
with a specific math content area
Math terms directly associated with a
specific content area
Math terms associated with a specific
math terminology

before, after, combine, extra together, more, greater than,

total, fewer, sort, fewer than, take away
addition, digits, division, multiplication, factor, factors,
subtraction, sum
quotient, divisor, divisible by, dividend, least common
denominator, least common multiple
perimeter, area, cylinder, inch, meter, centimeter, mile,
rectangle, square, triangle, cube, right triangle

Source. Adapted from Ernst-Slavit and Slavit (2007); Orosco, Swanson, OConnor, and Lussier (2013).

should include (a) methods of explicit and direct instruction

that teaches conceptual understanding of math concepts and
principles of a word problem (e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, Finelli,
Courey, & Hamlett, 2004; Griffin & Jitendra, 2008; Jitendra,
DiPipi, & Perron-Jones, 2002; Jitendra, Griffin, DeatlineBuchman, & Sczesniak, 2007; Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee,
1999), (b) visual representation techniques designed to bridge
a connection from verbal information to symbolic understanding by creating a mental model (e.g., Jitendra et al.,
2007; Jitendra & Xin, 1997; Van Garderen & Montague,
2003), (c) using instructional feedback with peer-assisted
learning strategies during instruction (e.g., Fuchs, Compton,
et al., 2008; Fuchs, Fuchs, Yazdin, & Powell, 2002; Fuchs,
Seethaler, et al., 2008), and (d) small group instruction,
instructional modeling, corrective feedback, and student verbalizations (Baker, Gersten, & Lee, 2002; Gersten et al.,
2009; Swanson et al., 1999). Although this effective instruction with English only students may serve as a foundation for
teaching ELLs, however, this general effective instruction is
probably not sufficient to promote accelerated math learning
among ELLs at risk for MD. Nevertheless, it is most likely a
necessary basis.
In addition, another discrepancy that arises from the
math literature is the high dependency on standardized
measures (e.g., administered pre- and post-test) which test a
students word-problem-solving performance by presenting
scripted tasks that require the student to access previous
learned knowledge with little teacher input (e.g., Grigorenko,
2009; Haywood & Lidz, 2007; Swanson & Lussier, 2001).
Because of this, static assessments have not been able to
incorporate teacherstudent interaction as part of the testing
process, where such feedback can help alleviate student
problem-solving difficulty. As a result of this, there is an
opportunity in the math literature in developing an assessment model that can be used to identify word-problemsolving challenges, make diagnostic decisions, and propose
instructional strategies that address learning difficulties.
The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of
a math strategy procedure based on a dynamic assessment
(DA) framework.

DA diverges with traditional models of assessment and

instruction, in which only the students current competencies are measured, and the tester does not intervene so as
not to influence the results (Orosco et al., 2013). In contrast, DA determines whether substantive changes that
occur in student performance were due to instructional scaffolding across an array of tasks. During DA, a teacher facilitates a students ability to build on prior knowledge through
studentteacher interaction, and uses this mediation process
as a way to help the student internalize new information
(Vygotsky, 1962, 1978). The teacher uses a standardized
protocol to measure learning potential. The learning potential is a higher level of academic ability that a student can
achieve after new knowledge is presented instructionally.
Specifically, learning potential is measured in terms of the
difference between, and/or change from a students level of
performance when unassisted versus their achievable level
of performance with assistance (i.e., Zone of Proximal
Development [ZPD]; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002). Thus,
DA allows for the measurement of students developing
skills in determining which of these abilities are modifiable,
and what interventions or mediational supports may be
developed to improve their cognitive processes (Englert &
Mariage, 2013).
Although DA has been suggested as an alternative to traditional math assessment (e.g., Fuchs, Compton, et al.,
2008; Seethaler, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012), there are
few published studies with Latino ELLs at risk for MD. The
purpose of this study was to investigate a word-problemsolving strategy called Dynamic Strategic Math (DSM).
DSM was operationally defined throughout this study as the
tester modifying word-problem solving via a four-level
vocabulary modification procedure (Table 1) to the students level of word-problem-solving cognition, and then
providing intervention with probes that assessed students
word-problem-solving ability. This study addressed two
research questions with Latino ELLs.
Research Question 1: To what level does DA improve
students word-problem-solving skills as measured by

Downloaded from ldq.sagepub.com at Massey University Library on April 8, 2015

47

Orosco
word-problem-solving achievement (compared with
baseline level)?
Research Question 2: To what degree does DA maintain students word-problem-solving skills in generalization sessions?

Method
Setting and Participants
Six third-grade Latino ELLs at risk for MD from a southern
California (English/Spanish) elementary classroom participated in this study. This study defines Latino ELLs as students who speak Spanish as their native language, are
identified as coming from Latin American descendants
(e.g., Mexican, Mexican American), and are in the process
of acquiring English as a second language, and who have
not achieved full English proficiency. The schools population consisted of 453 students (55% Hispanic [39% Latino
ELLs], 22% Black/African Americans, 14% White (nonHispanic), 5% Asian, and 4% Other [categories created
based on the U.S. Census]). According to district information, 75% of the schools population was in the free or
reduced-price lunch program.
While there is controversy over the definition of learning disabilities, this study adhered to the growing consensus among researchers that it is best to use an absolute
definition of learning disabilities (cutoff score on achievement) rather than a discrepancy between achievement and
IQ (e.g., Fletcher et al., 1989). In determining the criteria at
risk for MD, we first considered (a) teacher recommendation for intervention based on students being exposed to at
least 3 years of math instruction; (b) students who had continued to experience word-problem-solving difficulties in
English; (c) students who had performed in the lower 25th
percentile on district math tests previously; (d) Spanish
spoken as their native language, as determined by the
schools home language survey; (e) the California English
Language Development Test (CELDT; Marr, Rodden, &
Woods, 2009) was used to define ELL status; (f) Woodcock
Johnson NU Tests of Achievement 3rd Edition, Achievement
Test: Applied Problems (WJ NU III-ACH Test 10;
Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2007; students who performed in the lower 25th percentile were included in the
sample); and (g) parent consent. The WJ NU III has a
reported internal reliability coefficient of .85 for ACH Test
10 ages 8 to 10 (Woodcock et al., 2007). The test was
administered at pre- and post-test, and the test data were
compared with multiple baseline data, in determining
whether the math intervention positively mediated students word-problem-solving skills. Finally, the CELDT
measures English proficiency (listening, speaking, reading,
and writing), and reliability scores for this test are between
.73 and .94 across grade levels (Marr et al., 2009).

Instrument
DSM is built on a conceptual foundation of reciprocal
teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) and many features
associated with effective instruction (e.g., collaborative
group work, interactive dialogue, and explicit teaching
strategies; for example, Baker et al., 2002; National
Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008; National Research
Council, 2001). DSM includes instructional practices associated with improved reading comprehension: (a) building
vocabulary so that students can contextualize and bring
meaning to math language; (b) teaching students to monitor their comprehension and procedures for adjusting when
word-problem-solving difficulties arise; (c) using cooperating learning practices so that students not only practice
their English language skills, but also their problem-solving
skills; (d) providing support for questioning strategies that
assist students in answering critical questions about the
word problem, feedback to students regarding their answers
to questions, and opportunities for students to ask and
answer questions about the word problem; and (e) teaching
students to write down and reflect on important ideas in the
problem-solving process.
Finally, DSM has shown preliminary evidence as a
research-validated practice. The initial research was conducted with 6 second-grade Latino ELLs (Orosco et al.,
2013). In this single-subject study, students were taught by
the homeroom teacher to use the DSM with school math curriculum. Students made significant improvements in their
word-problem-solving and demonstrated high levels of academic engagement. They assisted each other with word
meanings, main ideas, and understanding word problem
text. Teacher feedback indicated that students word-problemsolving comprehension gains were associated with the quality and quantity of DSM training and implementation.

Experimental Design
A changing criterion multiple baseline across subjects
design (Kennedy, 2005) was used for evaluating the effects
of a problem-solving intervention that aimed to change
(accelerate)word-problem-solving efficiency in a systematic stepwise method. In this study, each intervention
session is associated with a stepwise criterion that targets
a word-problem-solving level of difficulty (four levels or
steps). The student advances to a higher level of difficulty
after solving a set of four word problems correctly at their
ZPD level. To prevent selection bias (Kratochwill &
Levin, 2010), participants were selected and categorized
based on teacher recommendation (all students had low
math and reading scores and a need for intervention), and
a list was randomly generated (based on Woodcock
Johnson [WCJ] scores and reading rank) so as not to place
the student with the most serious word-problem-solving

Downloaded from ldq.sagepub.com at Massey University Library on April 8, 2015

48

Learning Disability Quarterly 37(1)

Table 2. Dynamic Strategic Math Cue Sheet (Abbreviated Example).

Word problem example: Luis likes to spend time at theme parks. He spent three hours in Disneyland and four hours at Universal
Studies. What was the sum of time spent in theme parks in all?
Examiner, A word problem asks a question (point to the question): What was the sum of time spent in theme parks in all? Next, I
will underline the important words in the question.
Examiner, I know that the word sum means an amount obtained as a result of adding numbers. What does the concept sum of time
mean? Sum of time means to add (+) time together. Yes, this makes sense. Sum of time can also mean to add (+) time together.
Examiner, What was the sum of time spent in theme parks in all? The word problem states: Luis likes to spend time at theme
parks. He spent three hours in Disneyland and four hours at Universal Studies. I am going to circle these numbers, as these are the
numbers I need to solve this problem. Okay, lets solve the problem. He needs to sum or add time, writing 3 hours + 4 hours = 7
hours. My answer is 7 hours. Luis spent 7 hours at theme parks.
Examiner, Okay, I need to check my answer. In the ones place 3 plus 4 equals 7. Luis spent 7 hours at theme parks. Now it is your turn.

Table 3. Dynamic Strategic Math Probe (DSMAP).

Examiner, A word problem asks a question. Can you find the question in the following word problem?
Examiner, In each question there are always important words. Can you underline words in this question that you think are important
to solving this problem?
Examiner, In each math problem there are always numbers that you need to solve the problem. Can you circle the numbers that you
need to solve this problem?
Examiner, Numbers are used to set-up and solve a math problem. Can you use these numbers to set-up the problem so that you can
solve the word problem?
Examiner, After solving the math problem, you need to check your answer. Can you check your answer?

difficulties (e.g., WCJ math scores) first (e.g., Natasha

went first). After students math performance was stable in
the baseline phase, the independent variable was staggered
across subjects and the number of sessions necessary to
establish response stability (minimum of three sessions
above the baseline mean). All participants were individually administered four word problems per session similar
to those used during the baseline phase. This study was
conducted as a pullout program for 17 sessions (average
2025 min per session) over a 5-week period and was a
supplementary intervention to the general education math
curriculum students received (50 min/day).
Word problems. In this study, word problems applied were
similar to those used in daily instruction. These word problems were linguistically modified based on a scaffolding
ladder that premised the language of math into four onedimensional language levels, each providing a scaffold that
supported the next higher level of word-problem-solving
development. Level 1 word problems were embedded in
basic math terminology used in everyday discourse (highfrequency words), Level 2 word problems incorporated
math terms not directly associated with a specific math content (general math words), Level 3 word problems included
math words directly associated with a specific math content
area (specialized math vocabulary), and Level 4 incorporated math vocabulary associated with a specific math

content area topic (technical vocabulary). As an example of

this scaffolding (Table 2), a Level 2 word problem may
have asked the following: Luis likes to spend time at theme
parks. He spent three hours in Disneyland and four hours at
Universal Studies. What was the sum of time spent at theme
parks in all? In this example, the word problem was made
less linguistically complex by taking the Level 2 math term
(sum), and teaching a Level 1 meaning (total) without altering the math concept being taught.
Probing. In this study, a probing procedure was developed
by the researcher (see Table 3), in which the dependent variable was word-problem level achieved with the strategy
intervention. The tool was designed to scaffold differing
levels of students word-problem-solving skills through the
application of five prompts in determining a students ability with and without assistance. Scoring of the five levels
involved the assignment of points at each prompt (0 =
incorrect response, 1 = correct response). As part of the
probing procedure, each student was asked to solve four linguistically modified word problems based on their problemsolving level. After 3-min duration, if the student was
having difficulty solving the problem, the student was given
the prompts with 1 min to answer each prompt. The administration of prompts averaged 4- to 5-min duration, and the
number of prompts administered to solve the problem
established the type of intervention students received.

Downloaded from ldq.sagepub.com at Massey University Library on April 8, 2015

49

Orosco

Procedure
Baseline phase. At the baseline level, each participant was
individually administered four grade-level word problems
that contained four progressive levels of word problem difficulty. Students were told to do their best, and given as
much time as possible to solve the problems. None of the
participants required more than 10 min in attempting to
solve the problems. This established the baseline level as
the word-problem level each student could accurately solve
without assistance. This also created the entry level/starting
point for the word problems for the intervention. All six
participants started at word-problem-solving Level 1.
Intervention Phase 1: Preteaching concepts and vocabulary.ELLs were first pre-taught specific math concepts,
vocabulary, and terminology for the word-problem-solving
lesson by direct and explicit modeling (see the appendix for
description).
Intervention Phase 2: Teaching the strategies.At this level,
DSM integrated five common problem-solving strategies
(What Do I Know, What Can I Find, What Is The Set-Up,
Solve It, and Check For Understanding) that showed students how to solve the word problem that were modeled
through direct and explicit instruction (see appendix for
description).
Intervention Phase 3: Co-operative learning and/or student pairing. Once students were knowledgeable in strategy usage,
they were provided a collaborative approach (in pairs one
student and one teacher), which allowed the students to
practice these strategy methods (see appendix for description). If word-problem-solving difficulties persisted in this
stage, the teacher re-taught specific strategies by reciprocal
teaching again until the students understood them.

applied in teacher interactions with students, a treatment

integrity checklist based on the sequence of probe statements (e.g., pacing, quality of instruction, and scaffolding)
for each intervention was applied. The checklist was completed by a classroom observer (the researcher alternated
with the ELL teacher as implementer/observer) for a total of
33% of all phases, including 33% for baseline, 33% for
intervention, and 33% for maintenance. The observer would
code for fidelity via a checklist and score yes or no for
each probed observed. A total agreement calculation method
for each session (i.e., dividing the number of agreements
between the probe responses by the number of disagreements and then multiplying by 100) indicated the consistent
presence of intervention behaviors for all sessions by the
two observers at baseline (85%), intervention (100%), and
maintenance behaviors (90%).

Results
Figure 1 displays word-problem level achieved for each
participant as a function of baseline, intervention, and maintenance sessions. Visual analysis supports strong evidence
of a causal relationship (Kratochwill et al., 2010) between
the DSM intervention on word-problem-solving accuracy.
In addition, there was a clear consistency of level, trend,
and variability in baseline, intervention, and maintenance
phases. Also shown are WJ NU III-ACH Test 10 pre and
post-test scores (Table 4).

Baseline Performance
During baseline, all six participants started at a baseline
Level 1. Although the participants performance on word
problem solving demonstrated a pattern of stability at baseline, the low performance on more language complex and
difficult word problems for all the participants indicated a
need for intervention.

Social Validity
At the conclusion of the study the social validity of the
intervention was assessed using a three-question interview
protocol. During this interview, participants were asked
questions regarding their satisfaction with DSM (e.g., Do
you think the strategy helped you understand word problems better? Please explain.)

Interobserver Agreement and Treatment

Integrity
An ELL/bilingual trained classroom teacher and researcher
alternated sessions administering the intervention. To check
on the degree to which intervention techniques were being

Intervention
As compared with baseline, the intervention condition produced an increased trend (effect) in accuracy and level of
word-problem difficulty solved for all students. After each
session, each participant was administered a set of four
word problems based on the intervention level received. All
students showed immediate effects from DSM intervention
because they received learning opportunities that were open
and constrained to their background knowledge, oral
language development, vocabulary, and problem-solving
needs. First, students were directly and explicitly taught
math concepts and vocabulary that connected to everyday
words. This helped to build their linguistic math register.

Downloaded from ldq.sagepub.com at Massey University Library on April 8, 2015

50

Learning Disability Quarterly 37(1)

performance a Level 4, while, April, Natasha, Victoria,
Tomas, and Rudy maintained a Level 3. Post-test scores on
the WJ NU III-ACH Test 10 also indicated student gains as
a result of intervention.

Social Validity
Interview data indicated that all the participants were in
agreement (100%) that intervention procedures were reasonable and effective. Several students commented around
the theme I like the teaching; we could talk about math.
The teacher commented, I really liked the simplicity of the
strategy, and how easily it integrated math content and
vocabulary with ELL reading pedagogy. The students recommended more collaboration and practice time. Also,
the teacher would have liked more professional development and planning time to think about how to improve on
her word-problem-solving instruction.

Discussion

Figure 1. Word-problem-solving level achieved per session.

Next, students were taught comprehension strategies that

involved building on students current knowledge for solving word problems that depended on understanding the
quantities involved in the problems and the procedural fluency required in solving these problems. Finally, students
were given carefully directed practice, with feedback, to
develop the intervention method through the use of probes.
These probes built on students thinking and helped them
practice their math and language skills, and also helped
them attend to relationships between the problems and solutions to word problems.

Maintenance
Finally, to determine maintenance of treatment skills, all
students were administered four math word problems similar to those used during the baseline phase for three sessions. During this phase, all students sustained a consistent
word-problem-solving accuracy level similar to the intervention phase. Arthur maintained the highest level of

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of

a math intervention, DSM, on Latino ELLs word-problem-solving achievement. Visual analysis of graphed data
indicated a functional relationship between DSM and
increased word-problem-solving ability. As students
knowledge of DSM improved, their skills to solve word
problems with increasingly complex vocabulary and content improved during the intervention in comparison with
that during the baseline phase. In addition, students could
maintain knowledge of the DSM process, during three
maintenance sessions after intervention and relevant to
baseline phase. Overall, results provided support for the
impact of DSM on the improvement of word-problemsolving skills.
The evidence from this study lends support that DSM
improved ELLs word-problem-solving ability during the
treatment phase in comparison to baseline phase, and this
performance was maintained during generalization sessions.
The DA literature infers that scaffolding interventions can
positively mediate word-problem-solving performance over
time because it can give mediation support based on students actual developmental level as determined by independent problem-solving performance, and the highest level of
potential development achieved through teacher assistance
or collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978).
The results (e.g., increased word-problem-solving ability) of
this study demonstrated a positive mediation trend during
intervention. Although students in this project had the basic
math skills to perform algorithmic computations adequately,
while encountering word problems, the participants needed
assistance in understanding math vocabulary and concepts
to improve their word-problem-solving performance. The
findings from this study were consistent with those of the

Downloaded from ldq.sagepub.com at Massey University Library on April 8, 2015

51

Orosco
Table 4. Demographic, School-Related Data, and WCJ Test 10 Pre- and Post-Test Scores.
Student

Gender

Age

District reading
assessment level

Natasha
Victoria
April
Tomas
Rudy
Arthur
M
SD

F
F
F
M
M
M

8.7
8.6
8.5
8.8
9.0
8.7

2.4
2.7
2.6
2.8
2.5
2.7

District math
assessment level
Below basic
Below basic
Below basic
Below basic
Below basic
Below basic

WCJ pre-test
percentile (%)

WCJ pre-test
standard score

16
18
14
18
16
18
16.67
1.63

85
86
84
86
85
86

WCJ post-test
percentile (%)
18
19
16
19
18
21
18.50
1.64

WCJ post-test
standard score
86
87
85
87
86
88

Note. WCJ = WoodcockJohnson NU Tests of Achievement 3rd Edition, Achievement Test: Applied Problems; F = Female; M = Male.

emerging literature in this and area that dynamic math

assessment may be an effective model for improving ELLs
word-problem-solving performance.
Finally, the evidence from this study provides additional support for the integration of math content with
reading comprehension strategies as an effective pedagogy for teaching ELLs word-problem-solving skills.
Evidence from this study indicates that reading comprehension strategies (e.g., reciprocal teaching) may be an
effective method because it provides a dialogic form of
scaffolding instruction that integrates students reading
prompts (e.g., consider their background knowledge on
the topic they are reading, to summarize key ideas, and to
self-question while they read) with math content. The
results from this study indicate that DSM may be an
effective word problem solving tool because it can
improve ELLs word problem solving accuracy, promotes
their academic language development, and provides equitable access for them to general math education. In addition, this method gives teachers a deeper understanding of
the underlying processes, essential elements, development trajectory, skill levels, and potential of their students math achievement through improved instruction.

Implications

Limitations

Intervention Procedure

While the findings from this study demonstrate that ELLs

word-problem-solving skills can be positively mediated to
higher development levels (e.g., criterion changing math
terminology difficulty) by providing scaffolding support,
there were limitations to this study. This was a small-scale
study (N = 6) in which individual data were collected for
duration of 17 sessions, and therefore, the extent to which
the intervention may have positively mediated wordproblem-solving skills in other ELLs for this duration of
time is unknown. And because of this, generalizing intervention effectiveness to other ELL populations is limited.
To date, there have been few math studies that combine DA
with reading instruction with ELLs at the elementary in
comparing intervention effectiveness.

Baseline phase. The baseline level was established as the

word problem level (4 possible levels) the student could
accurately solve without assistance. This established the
word problem level/difficulty starting point of the
intervention.

The evidence from this study has implications for ELLs at

risk for MD. These findings indicate that although participants had number sense, school data collected prior to the
study indicated that the participants skill level was limited
to number calculations with basic math problems and heavily influenced by the context in which the numbers
appeared. This below basic grade-level performance indicated that DSM provided ELLs with (a) a differentiated
math instruction, one that was matched to the students
English language proficiency; (b) instructional approaches,
which built on students pre-existing background knowledge and made a connection with prior learning experiences; (c) teacher and student joint collaborative activities;
(d) an opportunity to use sentence frames and models to
help students talk about math content; and (e) gave additional math practice and/or math time for discussion of key
concepts. Word-problem-solving data indicated that students could acquire higher-level word-problem-solving
proficiency with scaffolding support in vocabulary and
reading comprehension development.

Appendix

Intervention phase 1: Preteaching concepts and

vocabulary. Each student was provided 3 5 index
cards to practice concepts and vocabulary. The teacher
modeled the activity by holding up a card, providing
a definition, elaborating on the definition through
contextualization, writing this vocabulary on chart
paper/blackboard, and applying usage of the word in
a math problem while solving it.

Downloaded from ldq.sagepub.com at Massey University Library on April 8, 2015

52

Learning Disability Quarterly 37(1)

1. Definition: The teacher stated: This is the word sum.

It means to combine, add, or total. [On the chart paper
the teacher wrote these sentences and next to them,
the math symbol +.]
2. Contextualization: The teacher contextualized the
vocabulary by stating: Luis likes to spend time at
theme parks. He spent three hours in Disneyland and
four hours at Universal Studies. What was the sum of
time spent in theme parks in all? What does sum
mean? [Referring to the chart paper.] Sum means to
combine (+). Sum means to add (+). Sum means to
total (+).
3. Writing & Using: The teacher repeats reading the
word problem, and then solves the problem on board.
3 + 4 = 7, the sum of time spent at theme parks was
seven. Now it is your turn. [Students repeat this
process.]
As students became familiar with this information, the
teacher then began to integrate and embed comprehension
strategy instruction.
Intervention phase 2: Teaching the strategies. At this
level, DSM integrated five common problem-solving
strategies (Know, Find, Set-Up, Solve, and Check
Understanding):
1. Know - What do I know about the question occurred
after reading the word problem and consisted of
brainstorming (activating background knowledge)
what was already known about the word problem,
and predicting how it may be solved.
2. Find - Find the important vocabulary and numbers
occurred during reading and referred to the process
of finding key information for meaning and
understanding.
At this point, students were taught to use strategies to
help them figure out unknown words or concepts.
3. Set Up - Students also began to set it up during reading by stopping after each sentence to find the main
idea and to check to see if this information was relevant to solving the problem.
4. Solve - Finally, solve it and check it took place after
reading the word problem.
5. Check Understanding - Next, students checked their
understanding by generating and answering questions
about what they had already read and reviewed what
they had learned by summarizing the key ideas presented in the word problem, solving it, and checking
it to see if solved correctly.
Intervention phase 3: Cooperative learning and/or
student pairing. Once students were knowledgeable
in strategy usage, they were provided a collaborative

approach (in pairs), which allowed the students to

practice this method. In this stage, the student assumed
the leadership role and imitated the teachers role.
Within this process:
1. The student generated and asked questions to check
for understanding.
2. The student solved the problem and checked to see if it
was answered correctly. If answered incorrectly, the problem-solving process was repeated between the teacher
and student again, to see where mistakes were made.
Within this process:
1. The teacher monitored the students effectiveness by
providing probes as needed (e.g., reading words, clarifying math concepts, or reminding students of a strategy skipped). (See Table 2 for probes and Table 3 for
strategy cues.)
2. If word-problem-solving difficulties persisted, the
teacher then re-taught specific strategies by reciprocal teaching again until the student understood them.
Declaration of Conflicting Interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
paper is based on a study funded by the U.S. Department of
Education, Cognition and Student Learning in Special Education
(USDE R324A090002), Institute of Education Sciences, awarded
to the author.

References
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. (2002). A synthesis of empirical
research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The
Elementary School Journal, 103, 5173. doi:10.1086/499715
Crdenas-Hagan, E., Carlson, C. D., & Pollard-Durodola, S. D.
(2007). The cross-linguistic transfer of early literacy skills: The
role of initial l1 & l2 skills and language of instruction. Language
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 249259.
Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. (2013). The sociocultural model
as a framework in instructional intervention research. In
H. Lee Swanson, S. Graham, & K. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook
of learning disabilities (pp. 545564). New York, NY: Guilford.
Ernst-Slavit, G., & Slavit, D. (2007). Educational reform, mathematics, & diverse learners: Meeting the needs of all students.
Multicultural Education, 14(4), 2027.
Fletcher, J. M., Epsy, K. A., Francis, P. J., Davidson, K. C.,
Rourke, B. P., & Shaywitz, S. E. (1989). Comparison of
cutoff and regression-based definitions of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 334338.
doi:10.1177/002221948902200603

Downloaded from ldq.sagepub.com at Massey University Library on April 8, 2015

53

Orosco
Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Hollenbeck, N., Craddock,
C. F., & Hamlett, C. L. (2008). Dynamic assessment of algebraic learning in predicating third graders development
of mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100, 829850. doi:10.1037/a0012657
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Finelli, R., Courey, S. J., & Hamlett, C.
L. (2004). Expanding schema-based transfer instruction to
help third graders solve real-life mathematical problems.
American Educational Research Journal, 41, 419445.
doi:10.3102/00028312041002419
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Yazdin, L., & Powell, S. R. (2002).
Enhancing first-grade childrens mathematical development
with peer-assisted learning strategies. School Psychology
Review, 31, 569583.
Fuchs, L. S., Seethaler, P. S., Powell, S. R., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L.,
& Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Effects of preventative tutoring on the
mathematical problem solving of third-grade students with math
and reading difficulties. Exceptional Children, 74, 155173.
Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P.,
& Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with
learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 12021242.
doi:10.3102/0034654309334431
Goldenberg, C. (2011). Reading instruction for English language
learners. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P.
Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research volume IV
(pp. 684710). New York, NY: Routledge.
Griffin, C., & Jitendra, A. K. (2008). Word problem-solving
instruction in inclusive third-grade mathematics classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 187201.
doi:10.3200/JOER.102.3.187-202
Grigorenko, E. L. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to
intervention: Two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 42, 111132. doi:10.1177/0022219408326207
Haywood, C. K., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in
practice: Clinical and educational applications. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of Educational Research, 78, 10101038.
doi:10.3102/0034654308325580
Jitendra, A. K., DiPipi, C. M., & Perron-Jones, N. (2002). An
exploratory study of schema-based word-problem solving
instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities: An emphasis on conceptual and procedural understanding. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 2238. doi:10.117
7/00224669020360010301
Jitendra, A. K., Griffin, C., Deatline-Buchman, A., & Sczesniak,
E. (2007). Mathematical word problem-solving in third grade
classrooms: Lessons, learned from design experiments. The
Journal of Educational Research, 100, 283302.doi:10.3200/
JOER.100.5.283-302
Jitendra, A., & Xin, Y. P. (1997). Mathematical word-problemsolving instruction for students with mild disabilities
and students at risk for math failure a research synthesis. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 412438.
doi:10.1177/002246699703000404
Kennedy, C. (2005). Single-case designs for educational
researcher. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon.
Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R.,
Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. (2010).

Single-case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf
Kratochwill, T. R., & Levin, J. R. (2010). Enhancing the scientific
credibility of single-case intervention research: Randomization
to the rescue. Psychological Methods, 15, 124144.
Marr, D., Rodden, L., & Woods, A. (2009). Technical report for
the California English Language Development Test (CELDT)
(California Department of Education). Monterrey, CA: CTB/
McGraw-Hill.
Mathes, P. G., Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Crdenas-Hagan, E., LinanThompson, S., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Teaching struggling readers
who are native Spanish speakers: What do we know? Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 260271.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations
for success: The final report of the National Mathematics
Advisory Panel. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/
bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics ((J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B.
Findell, Eds. Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center
for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences
and Education). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Orosco, M. J., Swanson, H. L., OConnor, R., & Lussier, C.
(2013). The effects of dynamic strategic math on English language learners word problem solving. The Journal of Special
Education, 47, 96107.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). The reciprocal teaching
of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring
activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117175.
Pollard-Durodola, S. D., & Simmons, D. C. (2009). The role
of explicit instruction and instructional design in promoting awareness development and transfer from Spanish
to English. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming
Learning Difficulties, 25, 139161.
Rupley, W. H., & Nichols, W. D. (2005). Vocabulary instruction for the struggling reader. Reading & Writing Quarterly:
Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 21, 239260.
Seethaler, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2012).
Predicting first graders development of calculation versus wordproblem performance: The role of dynamic assessment. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 104, 224234. doi:10.1037/a0024968
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The
nature and measurement of learning potential. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. M. (1999). Interventions for
students with learning disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford.
Swanson, H. L., & Lussier, C. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational
Research, 71, 321363. doi:10.3102/00346543071002321
Van Garderen, D., & Montague, M. (2003). Visual-spatial representation, mathematical problem solving, and students of
varying abilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
18, 246254. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00079
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, J. (2007). Woodcock
Johnson NU tests of achievement (3rd ed.). Rolling Meadows,
IL: Riverside Publishing.

Downloaded from ldq.sagepub.com at Massey University Library on April 8, 2015