Examining a Preteaching Framework to Improve Fraction Computation Outcomes Among Struggling Learners

References

• Anderson-Inman, L. (1986). Bridging the gap: Student-centered strategies for promoting the transfer of learning. Exceptional Children, 52(6), 562–572.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, M., Burns, M. K., & Lau, M. (2009). The effect of preteaching reading skills on the on-task behavior of children identified with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 91–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, M., Bell, J., Bretzlauf, J., Dellard, A., Hartfield, R., Isaacs, A., et al. (2004). Everyday mathematics. Chicago, IL: SRA/McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Bottge, B. A., & Hasselbring, T. S. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children, 59(6), 556–566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant, D., Bryant, B. R., & Hammill, D. D. (2000). Characteristic behaviors of students with LD who have teacher-identified math weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 168–177. doi:10.1177/002221940003300205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., Gersten, R., Scammacca, N., & Chavez, M. M. (2008). Mathematics Intervention for first-and second-grade students with mathematics difficulties the effects of tier 2 intervention delivered as booster lessons. Remedial and Special Education, 29(1), 20–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns, M. K., Dean, V. J., & Foley, S. (2004). Preteaching unknown key words with incremental rehearsal to improve reading fluency and comprehension with children identified as reading disabled. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 303–314. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2004.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, F. M., Miller, S. P., Crehan, K., Babbitt, B., & Pierce, T. (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
   Google Scholar
• Byrnes, J. P., & Wasik, B. A. (1991). Role of conceptual knowledge in mathematical procedural learning. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 777.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carnine, D. (1980). Preteaching versus concurrent teaching of the component skills of a multiplication algorithm. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11, 375–379. doi:10.2307/748628
   Google Scholar
• Cass, M., Cates, D., Smith, M., & Jackson, C. (2003). Effects of manipulative instruction on solving area and perimeter problems by students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 112–120. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00067
   Google Scholar
• Clearinghouse, W. W. (2010). WWC intervention report. Washington, DC: WWC, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
   Google Scholar
• Empson, S. B., Levi, L., & Carpenter, T. P. (2011). The algebraic nature of fractions: Developing relational thinking in elementary school. In Early algebraization (pp. 409–428). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Flores, M. M. (2010). Using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence to teach subtraction with regrouping to students at risk for failure. Remedial and Special Education, 31(3), 195–207. doi:10.1177/0741932508327467
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flores, M. M., & Kaylor, M. (2007). The effects of a direct instruction program on the fraction performance of middle school students at-risk for failure in mathematics. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(2), 84.
   Google Scholar
• Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2008). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities or difficulty learning mathematics: A synthesis of the intervention research. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521890.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gersten, R., & Kelly, B. (1992). Coaching secondary special education teachers in implementation of an innovative videodisc mathematics curriculum. Remedial and Special Education, 13(4), 40–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins, R. O., Hale, A., Sheeley, W., & Ling, S. (2011). Repeated reading and vocabulary-previewing interventions to improve fluency and comprehension for struggling high-school readers. Psychology in the Schools, 48(1), 59–77. doi:10.1002/pits.20545
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Impecoven-Lind, L. S., & Foegen, A. (2010). Teaching algebra to students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(1), 31–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan, L., Miller, M. D., & Mercer, C. D. (1999). The effects of concrete to semiconcrete to abstract instruction in the acquisition and retention of fraction concepts and skills. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(3), 115–122.
   Google Scholar
• Joseph, L. M., & Hunter, A. D. (2001). Differential application of a cue card strategy for solving fraction problems: Exploring instructional utility of the cognitive assessment system. Child Study Journal, 31(2), 123–137.
   Google Scholar
• Kameenui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (1986). Preteaching versus concurrent teaching of component skills of a subtraction algorithm to skill-deficient second graders: A components analysis of direct instruction. The Exceptional Child, 33(2), 103–115. doi:10.1080/0156655860330203
   Google Scholar
• Koury, K. A. (1996). The impact of preteaching science content vocabulary using integrated media for knowledge acquisition in a collaborative classroom. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7(3–4), 179–197.
   Google Scholar
• Lalley, J. P., & Miller, R. H. (2006). Effects of pre-teaching and re-teaching on math achievement and academic self-concept of students with low achievement in math. Education, 126(4), 747–755.
   Google Scholar
• Maccini, P., & Ruhl, K. L. (2000). Effects of a graduated instructional sequence on the algebraic subtraction of integers by secondary students with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 465–489.
   Google Scholar
• Mancl, D. B., Miller, S. P., & Kennedy, M. (2012). Using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence with integrated strategy instruction to teach subtraction with regrouping to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(4), 152–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1993). Using data to learn concrete-semiconcrete-abstract instruction for students with math disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1997). Educational aspects of mathematics disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(1), 47–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Misquitta, R. (2011). A review of the literature: Fraction instruction for struggling learners in mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(2), 109–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morin, V. A., & Miller, S. P. (1998). Teaching multiplication to middle school students with mental retardation. Education and Treatment of Children, 21(1), 22–36.
   Google Scholar
• Munk, J. H., Gibb, G. S., & Caldarella, P. (2010). Collaborative preteaching of students at risk for academic failure. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(3), 177–185. doi:10.1177/1053451209349534
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Newman-Gonchar, R., Clarke, B., & Gersten, R. (2009). A summary of nine key studies: Multi-tier intervention and response to interventions for students struggling in mathematics. Center on Instruction. ERIC: ED521567.
   Google Scholar
• Ni, Y., & Zhou, Y. D. (2005). Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: The origins and implications of whole number bias. Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 27–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, S. K., Mercer, C. D., & O'Shea, L. (1988). Teaching learning disabled students place value using the concrete to abstract sequence. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 52–56.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, T. L. (1984). The effects of two prepractice procedures on oral reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17(9), 544–548. doi:10.1177/002221948401700908
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheuermann, A. M., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2009). The effects of the explicit inquiry routine on the performance of students with learning disabilities on one-variable equations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(2), 103–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Test, D. W., & Ellis, M. F. (2005). The effects of LAP fractions on addition and subtraction of fractions with students with mild disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 11–24.
   Google Scholar
• Vaughn, S. (2011). Foreword. In R. Gersten & R. Newman-Gonchar (Eds.), Understanding RTI in mathematics (pp. xv–xvi). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Vaughn, S., Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2008). Response to intervention: A framework for reading educators. International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Witzel, B. S. (2005). Using CRA to teach algebra to students with math difficulties in inclusive settings. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3(2), 49–60.
   Google Scholar
• Witzel, B. S., Mercer, C. D., & Miller, M. D. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(2), 121–131. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00068
   Google Scholar
• Witzel, B. S., Riccomini, P. J., & Schneider, E. (2008). Implementing CRA with secondary students with learning disabilities in mathematics. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(5), 270–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodward, J., Baxter, J., & Robinson, R. (1999). Rules and reasons: Decimal instruction for academically low achieving students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(1), 15–24.
   Google Scholar