Enhancing Third-Grade Students Mathematical Problem Solving With

Self-Regulated Learning Strategies

Lynn S. Fuchs, Douglas Fuchs, Karin Prentice, Mindy Burch, Carol L. Hamlett,
Rhoda Owen, and Katie Schroeter
Vanderbilt University
The authors assessed the contribution of self-regulated learning strategies (SRL), when combined with
problem-solving transfer instruction (L. S. Fuchs et al., 2003), on 3rd-graders mathematical problem
solving. SRL incorporated goal setting and self-evaluation. Problem-solving transfer instruction taught
problemsolution methods, the meaning of transfer, and 4 superficial-problem features that change a
problem without altering its type or solution; it also prompted metacognitive awareness to transfer. The
authors contrasted the effectiveness of transfer plus SRL to the transfer treatment alone and to
teacher-designed instruction. Twenty-four 3rd-grade teachers, with 395 students, were assigned randomly
to conditions. Treatments were conducted for 16 weeks. Students were pre- and posttested on problem-
solving tests and responded to a posttreatment questionnaire tapping self-regulation processes. SRL
positively affected performance.
Mathematical problem solving, which requires students to apply
knowledge, skills, and strategies to novel problems, is a form of
transfer that can be difficult to effect (cf. Bransford & Schwartz,
1999; Mayer, Quilici, & Moreno, 1999). One method to promote
mathematical problem solving is to help students regulate their
learning; that is, to become more metacognitively, motivationally,
and behaviorally active in their own learning (cf. De Corte, Ver-
schaffel, & Eynde, 2000; Zimmerman, 1995). The capacity to
self-regulate learning is associated with self-efficacy and intrinsic
task interest (Schunk, 1986, 1996; Zimmerman, 1995) as well as
academic achievement (e.g., Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Zimmer-
man & Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1988). That self-regulation covaries
with academic achievement prompts the question of whether in-
struction designed to increase student behaviors associated with
self-regulated learning strategies (SRL) promotes learning.
Theoretically, the use of SRL should promote learning. Goal
setting serves a motivational function, which may mobilize and
sustain effort to achieve objectives (Cervone, 1993). When com-
bined with self-evaluation, goal setting serves an informational
purpose (Schunk, 1994), whereby students may monitor their
progress against a standard and thereby adjust their use of skills
and strategies to increase the probability of goal attainment (Gra-
ham & Harris, 1997), even as students come to appreciate the
value of applying those skills and strategies (Zimmerman, 1995).
For example, Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1999) showed that
self-monitoring the use of a strategy in a single session enhanced
self-efficacy, self-reaction beliefs, and writing skill. Schunk found
that self-referenced progress feedback provided across 3 days led
to higher perceptions of efficacy, persistence, and skill (Schunk,
1982); goal setting implemented across three sessions enhanced
students self efficacy and skill (Schunk, 1985); and self-
evaluation promoted motivation as well as achievement when used
with performance goals across 7 days (Schunk, 1996). Page-Voth
and Graham (1999) showed that seventh and eighth graders with
learning disabilities, who wrote essays in response to goals across
three sessions, produced longer compositions, with more support-
ing reasons, which were qualitatively better than essays written
without goals.
In experiments lasting 3 weeks, Graham and colleagues exam-
ined the effects of SRL when combined with cognitive strategy
instruction (Graham & Harris, 1989; Sawyer, Graham, & Harris,
1992). Sawyer et al. (1992), for example, provided fifth- and
sixth-grade students with learning disabilities with small-group
(2:1) instruction to recite and use a five-step strategy for writing
compositions (look at the story stimulus picture, let your mind be
free, write down the reminder for the three story parts, write down
story ideas for each part, and write your story). In one of two
treatment groups, students also set goals for the number of story
elements in compositions and assessed or graphed the number and
kind of story elements in their stories. Both treatments produced
greater schematic structure posttest scores compared with a prac-
tice control condition, but only the combined treatment, which
included SRL, resulted in greater generalization to performance in
classrooms.
Although experimental work has assessed the effects of SRL in
mathematics (e.g., Schunk, 1982, 1985, 1996), studies are largely
restricted to performance on discrete computational skills, with
limited generalizability to problem solving. This is unfortunate
Lynn S. Fuchs, Douglas Fuchs, Karin Prentice, Mindy Burch, Carol L.
Hamlett, Rhoda Owen, and Katie Schroeter, Department of Special Edu-
cation, Vanderbilt University.
This research was supported in part by U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Special Education Programs Grant H324V980001 and National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development Core Grant HD15052 to
Vanderbilt University. Statements do not reflect the position or policy of
these agencies, and no official endorsement by them should be inferred.
We acknowledge the contribution of and express appreciation to Steve
Graham and Karen Harris in designing the SRL treatment.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lynn S.
Fuchs, Box 328 Peabody, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
37203. E-mail: lynn.fuchs@vanderbilt.edu
Journal of Educational Psychology Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
2003, Vol. 95, No. 2, 306315 0022-0663/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.306
306
because mathematics education reform over the past 15 years has
prompted schools to deemphasize computation and focus more on
problem-solving capacity with performance assessments that pose
real-world problem-solving dilemmas and require students to de-
velop solutions involving the application of multiple skills (e.g.,
De Corte et al., 2000; Resnick & Resnick, 1992; Rothman, 1995).
In fact, SRL may be especially relevant for complex problem
solving, which requires metacognition and perseverance in the face
of challenge (De Corte et al., 2000). Causal-comparative studies
(e.g., Lester & Garofalo, 1982; Schoenfeld, 1992; Silver, Branca,
& Adams, 1980) illustrate how self-regulation differs between
weak and skilled problem solvers: Experts spend more time ana-
lyzing problems before initiating solutions, reflect more frequently
on their problem solving, and alter their approach more flexibly.
To examine whether instructional environments might be designed
to foster self-regulation in the service of mathematical problem
solving, De Corte et al. (2000) described four design experi-
ments (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1997;
Lester, Garofalo, & Kroll, 1989; Schoenfeld, 1985, 1992; Ver-
schaffel et al., 1999; all cited in De Corte et al., 2000) with
promising results. Those design experiments, however, incorpo-
rated multiple innovative principles, with varying levels of exper-
imental control. So, it was not possible to determine whether
effects were attributable to SRL.
In the present study, we used an experimental design to separate
the effects of SRL, including goal setting and self-evaluation, on
mathematical problem solving. We investigated effects on a range
of mathematical problem-solving tasks and on SRL processes, as
assessed with a student questionnaire tapping self-efficacy, goal
orientation, self-monitoring, and effort. Also, we extended the
external validity of previous experiments by relying on whole-
class instruction delivered in general education for 16 weeks and
assessing effects for high-, average-, and low-achieving (HA, AA,
and LA, respectively) students as well as those with disabilities.
We examined the contribution of SRL when combined with
problem-solving transfer instruction (Fuchs et al., 2003). Consis-
tent with Salomon and Perkinss (1989) framework, mathematical
problem solving requires metacognition (i.e., decision-making pro-
cesses that regulate the selection of various forms of knowledge;
Zimmerman, 1989). At the same time, metacognition is a critical
process for self-regulation, whereby self-regulated learners set
goals, self-monitor, and self-evaluate their performance (cf. Zim-
merman, 1990). So, one approach for strengthening the metacog-
nitive component of problem-solving treatment is to incorporate
the SRL of goal setting and self-monitoring.
With the present studys SRL treatment, students set goals for
their performance on independent practice tasks during instruc-
tional sessions: Students set goals for their performance, scored
performance in terms of the process of their work and the accuracy
of their answer, and graphed scores on individual graphs. To
prompt transfer, we had students score and graph completion of
homework assignments on a class graph; students also identified
opportunities to apply skills outside of instructional sessions, dis-
cussed those opportunities with partners, reported them to the
class, and graphed their reports on a class graph. We deemed class
graphing and reporting to be a part of SRL because graphing
provided a socially mediated method to help students monitor
progress toward completing homework and identifying transfer
opportunities; reporting offered a socially mediated forum for
increasing motivation to exert effort in completing homework and
identifying transfer opportunities. We were interested in the con-
tribution of SRL on the mathematical problem solving of students
with varying achievement histories because of the possibility that
SRL effects may be mediated by prior achievement status. In early
research, children with cognitive deficiencies experienced diffi-
culty determining how well they used strategies (Borkowski &
Buechel, 1983) and failed to make accurate competency assess-
ments (Licht & Kistner, 1986). As Schunk (1996) suggested,
because AA and HA students assess their learning progress more
reliably than remedial students, SRL effects may be weaker for
low achievers. Our design addressed this possibility.
Although the present study shares measures and several other
procedures with Fuchs et al. (2003), the purpose of the two studies
differed. Fuchs et al. assessed the effects of an explicit approach to
teaching transfer; the present study, by contrast, examined the
contribution of SRL to mathematical problem solving. It is also
important to note that the two studies were conducted separately,
during different academic years, with different teacher and student
participants and with teachers in the present study participating
more in the delivery of lessons.
Method
Participants
From six schools in a southeastern urban school district, 24 third-grade
teachers volunteered to participate. Stratifying so that each condition was
represented approximately equally in each school, we randomly assigned
teachers to three conditions (8 per condition): control (teacher-designed
instruction informed by the basal), transfer (Fuchs et al.s, 2003, solution
plus transfer, with some modifications described in the following para-
graphs), and transfer plus SRL. Teacher groups were comparable on
gender, age, education, and years teaching. Students were the 395 children
in these classrooms who were present for each pre- and posttest. Student
groups were comparable on gender, reduced or free lunch, race, special-
education status, and English-as-a-second-language status. Also, the 395
children in the complete data set were demographically comparable with
the remaining 58 pupils who were absent on one or more pre- or posttest.
At the beginning of the study, on the basis of classroom observations and
scores from the preceding years district accountability testing, teachers
designated childrens initial mathematics achievement status as high, av-
erage, or low (i.e., HA, AA, or LA, respectively). Students were distributed
across HA, AA, and LA status, respectively, as follows: in control (n
120), 26 (22%), 60 (50%), and 34 (28%); in transfer (n 138), 32
(23%), 68 (49%), and 38 (27%); and in transfer plus SRL (n 137), 32
(23%), 71 (52%), and 34 (25%).
Treatment
The 24 teachers followed the districts curriculum, which required them
to address the same content each week of the year. We chose our four
problem types from this curriculum to ensure that control-group students
had instruction relevant to the study. See Fuchs et al. (2003) for informa-
tion on the four problem types and on the basal math program on which
control teachers relied almost entirely.
We supplemented the basalcontrol treatment with two experimental
conditions. Table 1 details which sessions were allocated to which activ-
ities for the transfer and the transfer-plus-SRL treatments. This sequence of
activities (i.e., Sessions 16) recurred for each of five units, but the content
for the activities varied according to the problem-solving unit. So, treat-
ment was 30 sessions (6 sessions 5 units) plus 2 cumulative review
307
MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM SOLVING
sessions delivered the week after winter break, for a total of 32 sessions.
Two sessions occurred each week. The transfer treatment comprised teach-
ing rules for problem solution, teaching for transfer, and cumulative
review. Differences between the Fuchs et al. (2003) solution-plus-transfer
and the present studys transfer treatment were as follows. First, we added
a 3-week introductory unit on basic math problem-solving information
(making sure answers made sense; lining up numbers from text to perform
math operations; checking computation; labeling work with words, mon-
etary signs, and mathematics symbols). Second, we dedicated one unit
(instead of two) to the shopping-list problem type. Third, at the end of each
session, students completed one problem independently and checked work
against an answer key. Fourth, students were assigned a problem for
homework, which they returned the next morning to the classroom home-
work collector (a competent classmate).
In the transfer-plus-SRL treatment, SRL components were incorporated
as follows. First, after students completed working the independent prob-
lem of each session, they also scored their independent problem using an
answer key specific to the units problem structure, which provided credit
for the process of the work and the accuracy of the answer. Second,
students charted their daily scores on an individual thermometer that went
from 0 to the maximum score for that problem type. For each unit, students
kept their chart in a personal folder. The chart showed 45 consecutive
thermometers, 1 for each of the last 45 sessions of the unit. Third, at the
beginning of the next session, students inspected their charts, were re-
minded that they wanted to beat their previous score(s) (or again achieve
the maximum score), and set a goal to beat their highest score on that days
independent problem. Fourth, using an answer key, students scored home-
work prior to submitting it to the homework collector. Fifth, at the begin-
ning of Sessions 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of each unit, students reported to the class
examples of how they had transferred the units problem structure to
another part of the school day or outside of school. The sixth activity
involved a class graph, on which the teacher recorded (a) the number of
students who had submitted homework to the homework collector and (b)
the number of pairs reporting a transfer event. In these ways, SRL incor-
porated goal setting and self-assessment referenced to the content of
instructional sessions, including acquisition of problemsolution rules as
well as transfer.
In each experimental condition, research assistants taught the first
problemsolution lesson and the first transfer lesson of each unit; teachers
were always present. Teachers taught the remaining sessions; typically but
not always, a research assistant was present. Each of five research assis-
tants had responsibility for classes in every condition. All sessions were
scripted to ensure consistency of information; however, to permit natural
teaching styles, we had the research assistants study, not read, the scripts.
To ensure comparable mathematics instructional time across conditions,
we scheduled the experimental sessions to occur during the mathematics
instructional block. At the end of the study, teachers reported the number
of minutes per week they spent on math, including this project. Means for
the control, transfer, and transfer-plus-SRL conditions, respectively, were
275.00 (SD 38.17), 263.75 (SD 44.65), and 276.88 (SD 36.82), F(2,
21) 0.15, ns.
Fidelity of treatment was measured as in Fuchs et al. (2003). In each
treatment group, audiotapes of research assistants, classes, units, and lesson
types were sampled equitably, with no tape reviewed more than once. In
the transfer condition, the percentage of key information points addressed
on the tapes averaged 96.90 (SD 9.56) for teachers and 95.70
(SD 4.14) for research assistants; in transfer plus SRL, the percentage of
key information points averaged 96.00 (SD 6.91) for teachers and 94.70
(SD 4.75) for research assistants.
Measures
We used four measures: three transfer measures and a student question-
naire of self-regulation processes. For information on the transfer mea-
sures, see Fuchs et al. (2003). Interscorer agreement computed on 20% of
the protocols by two independent, blind scorers, was .980 at pretreatment
and .968 at posttreatment (number of agreements divided by number of
items) for immediate transfer; .980 at pretreatment and .954 at posttreat-
ment for near transfer; and .950 at pretreatment and .940 at posttreatment
for far transfer. We scored the immediate- and near-transfer measures as
Table 1
Activities for Each Units Six Sessions by Treatment
Activity
Treatment
Transfer
a
Transfer
a
SRL
Solution
instruction
Transfer
instruction
Cumulative
review
Solution
instruction
Transfer
instruction
Cumulative
review
Individual graph inspected; days goal set 2,
b
3, 4 6 4, 6
Worked examples with explicit explanations 14 56 4, 6 14 56 4, 6
Dyadic practice 1,
b
24 6 4, 6 1,
b
24 6 4, 6
Independent problem
Completed 24 6 4, 6 24 6 4, 6
Checked against key 24 6 4, 6 24 6 4, 6
Scored against key 24 6 4, 6
Score graphed on individual chart 24 6 4, 6
Homework
Assigned 24 56 24 56
Collected 1,
c
3, 4 56 1,
c
3, 4 56
Scored 1,
c
3, 4 56
Number scored graphed on class chart 1,
c
3, 4 56
Dyadic debriefing on transfer events:
number graphed on class chart
1,
c
3, 4 56
Note. Sessions 16 occurred for each unit (15). SRL self-regulation learning strategies.
a
In Fuchs et al. (2003), the effects of this transfer treatment were assessed (labeled full solution transfer), with solution rules, transfer instruction, and
cumulative review.
b
Depending on unit, Sessions 1 and 5 contained the most new instructional content, precluding independent work and precluding
dyadic practice in Session 5 (and on occasion, in Session 1).
c
Problem from previous unit.
308
FUCHS ET AL.
product scores (i.e., answers) and as process scores (i.e., methods revealed
in students work). Because results were highly similar for both types of
scores and because of space constraints, we only report product scores here
(for process data or a copy of the measures, contact Lynn S. Fuchs). As
with Fuchs et al., research assistants delivered a 45-min test-wiseness
lesson immediately before pre- and posttesting in all treatment groups.
To assess self-regulation processes, we designed a questionnaire titled,
What Do You Think? with four statements assessing self-regulation
processes. The first two statements, I know how to transfer skills I learn
to new kinds of math problems and I learned a lot about math problem
solving this year, assessed self-efficacy. The next statement, When I do
math, I think about whether my work is getting better, examined goal
orientation and self-monitoring. The last statement, I worked hard this
year so I could get better in math, assessed effort.
Below each statement, were three response options: true, kind of true,
and not true. Research assistants read the following directions to the
students:
I have some questions Id like you to answer. I will read a sentence to
you. After I read the sentence, you mark your answer right below that
sentence. When youre done marking your answer, put your pencil
down. Do not work ahead. Wait until I read the next sentence before
moving on. As I read the sentence, listen carefully. Think about how
true that sentence is for you. There are no right or wrong answers.
Your answer tells how you feel. No one will see your answers except
me: not your classmates, not your teacher, not your parents. So, be
honest.
The research assistant then read a practice item, I am a good swimmer:
true, kind of true, not true, and said
Is this sentence true for you? Are you a good swimmer? If this
sentence is true for you, you are a good swimmer, circle true. If this
sentence is kind of true for you, circle kind of true. If this sentence is
not true for you, youre not a good swimmer, circle not true. You can
see that the same answer is not right for everybody. You have to circle
the answer thats right for you. Any questions? OK, here are some
more sentences.
Interscorer agreement was 100%. Responses were coded as true 1, kind
of true 2, and not true 3, making low scores desirable.
Data Collection
See Fuchs et al. (2003) for pre- and posttreatment data collection
procedures on the transfer measures. Student questionnaire data were
collected by trained research assistants at posttreatment in a whole-class
arrangement. Research assistants read each item and ensured that all
students had circled a response before proceeding to the next item. To
avoid familiar research assistants prompting awareness that experimental
conditions might be applicable, research assistants did not collect data in
classrooms where they had delivered lessons.
Data Analysis
Using teacher as the unit of analysis, we conducted a two-factor mixed
model analysis of variance (ANOVA) on each transfer measure and on
each item on the student questionnaire. Condition was the between-
teachers variable; initial achievement status (HA, AA, LA) was the within-
teacher variable. These analyses were applied to pretreatment transfer
scores to examine treatment group comparability, to change transfer scores
to investigate treatment efficacy in promoting growth, and then to post-
treatment self-regulation scores. (Results were analogous using change
scores and analysis of covariance. We opted to report change scores
because their interpretation is more straightforward and because they are
equally acceptable for analyzing two-wave data, each presenting a different
set of problems.) To evaluate pairwise comparisons for significant effects,
we used the Fisher least significant difference (LSD) post hoc procedure
(Seaman, Levin, & Serlin, 1991). For students with disabilities, we ran a
one-way ANOVA on each measure using condition as the factor and using
student as the unit of analysis because of the small sample size and the
uneven distribution of students across classrooms.
To estimate the practical significance of effects, we computed effect
sizes (ESs): on transfer measures, by subtracting the difference between
improvement means and then dividing by the pooled standard deviation of
the improvement/square root of 2(1 r
xy
) (Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981);
on questionnaire items, by subtracting the difference between the means
and then dividing by the pooled standard deviation (Hedges & Olkin,
1985).
Results
Table 2 contains means and standard deviations for pretreat-
ment, posttreatment, and improvement scores on the immediate-,
near-, and far-transfer measures; Table 3 includes ESs for the
treatment effects on the improvement scores; Table 4 has means
and standard deviations for student questionnaire items; and Table
5 includes demographics and performance variables for students
with disabilities.
Pretreatment Differences Among Treatment Groups
Groups were comparable prior to the study, as manifested by the
lack of significant main effects for condition and interactions
between condition and students initial treatment status on pre-
treatment immediate-, near-, or far-transfer measures. The F(2, 21)
values for the condition main effect on the three respective mea-
sures were 1.46, 0.86, and 0.33; the F(4, 42) values for the
interaction effect on the three respective measures were 0.34, 0.74,
and 0.47. There were significant main effects for students initial
achievement status at pretreatment: For the three respective mea-
sures, F(2, 42) values were 63.00, 51.45, and 62.86 (all ps .01).
LSD (using a critical p value of .016) follow-up tests showed that
for each measure, HA students scored higher than AA students,
who in turn scored higher than LA students. These effects pertain
across conditions and, therefore, do not threaten the validity of the
study. Rather, they provide support for the teachers classifications
of students into initial achievement groups.
Differential Student Learning as a Function of Treatment
Student improvement varied as a function of condition. For
immediate transfer, the condition main effect was significant, F(2,
21) 187.76, p .001. With Fishers LSD post hoc procedure,
the control groups improvement was less than that of the transfer
group, which in turn was inferior to that of the transfer-plus-SRL
group. This main effect was not mediated by students initial
treatment status, F(4, 42) 0.52, ns. See Table 2 for means and
standard deviations; see Table 3 for ESs.
For near transfer, the significant condition main effect, F(2,
21) 46.76, p .001, was mediated by a significant Condition
Initial Achievement Status interaction, F(4, 42) 5.05, p .01.
With Fishers LSD post hoc procedure, the HA control groups
improvement was less than that of the HA transfer group, which in
turn was inferior to that of the HA transfer-plus-SRL group; by
contrast, for AA and LA students, both experimental groups out-
309
MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM SOLVING
performed the control group, but the improvement of the transfer
and transfer-plus-SRL groups was comparable. See Table 2 for
means and standard deviations; see Table 3 for ESs.
For far transfer, the condition main effect again was significant,
F(2, 21) 4.03, p .05. With Fishers LSD post hoc procedure,
the transfer-plus-SRL groups outperformed the control group;
however, the improvement of the transfer group was comparable
with control and with transfer plus SRL. This main effect was not
mediated by students initial treatment status, F(4, 42) 0.18, ns.
See Table 2 for means and standard deviations; see Table 3 for
ESs.
(As with pretreatment performance, we found a significant main
effect for initial achievement status; for the three respective mea-
sures, F[2, 42] 31.81, 30.18, and 17.23 [all ps .01]. Across
conditions, LSD [using a critical p value of .016] follow-up tests
showed that (a) on acquisition, HA students outgrew AA students,
whose improvement was comparable with LA students, and (b) on
near and far transfer, HA students outperformed AA students, who
in turn grew more than LA students. These effects, which pertain
across conditions, do not threaten the studys validity.)
Self-Regulation Processes as a Function of Treatment
Results for the student questionnaire are shown in Table 4 (low
scores are desirable). On all four questions, we found a significant
effect for condition, which was not mediated by students initial
achievement status. With Fishers LSD post hoc procedure, for
three items, I learned a lot about math problem solving this year,
I worked hard this year so I could get better in math, and When
I do math, I think about whether my work is getting better,
control- and transfer-group responses were comparable but higher
than those of the transfer-plus-SRL group. For I know how to
transfer skills I learn to new kinds of math problems, control-
group responses were higher than those of either treatment groups,
whose scores were comparable with each other. ESs comparing
control against transfer, control against transfer plus SRL, and
transfer against transfer plus SRL, respectively, were as follows:
for I learned a lot about math problem solving this T
a
b
l
e
2
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
b
y
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
,
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
a
t
u
s
,
T
r
i
a
l
,
a
n
d
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
s
t
a
t
u
s
T
r
i
a
l

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
P
r
e
P
o
s
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

S
R
L
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

S
R
L
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

S
R
L
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
I
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
H
i
g
h
1
0
.
5
2
3
.
9
9
1
1
.
6
6
2
.
7
2
9
.
9
4
3
.
6
2
2
1
.
2
4
5
.
2
4
3
8
.
3
8
4
.
7
1
4
1
.
0
6
3
.
9
5
1
0
.
7
1
2
.
2
7
2
6
.
7
2
4
.
5
9
3
1
.
1
2
1
.
6
3
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
5
.
9
9
1
.
5
5
7
.
4
7
3
.
2
8
5
.
7
9
1
.
4
7
1
3
.
9
6
3
.
3
6
3
4
.
0
2
5
.
5
5
3
6
.
4
2
4
.
4
5
7
.
9
7
2
.
8
6
2
6
.
5
5
3
.
7
6
3
0
.
6
3
3
.
5
5
L
o
w
4
.
2
2
2
.
1
2
4
.
6
8
4
.
0
7
2
.
3
3
1
.
8
6
6
.
7
3
2
.
9
5
2
3
.
9
9
7
.
3
1
2
4
.
0
1
7
.
9
2
2
.
5
1
2
.
5
7
1
9
.
3
0
4
.
0
3
2
1
.
6
8
7
.
2
9
A
c
r
o
s
s
6
.
9
1
1
.
8
2
7
.
9
4
3
.
0
0
6
.
0
2
1
.
6
7
1
3
.
9
8
2
.
1
0
3
2
.
1
3
4
.
2
6
3
3
.
8
3
3
.
3
6
7
.
0
6
1
.
6
2
2
4
.
1
9
2
.
5
5
2
7
.
8
1
2
.
5
6
N
e
a
r
H
i
g
h
8
.
5
5
3
.
8
2
8
.
9
3
3
.
4
9
7
.
0
6
2
.
8
7
1
4
.
4
5
5
.
4
0
2
9
.
3
7
6
.
4
9
3
4
.
1
9
7
.
7
8
5
.
9
0
4
.
0
5
2
0
.
4
4
3
.
7
3
2
7
.
1
3
6
.
9
7
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
3
.
4
4
1
.
7
7
4
.
6
6
2
.
3
8
4
.
3
1
2
.
3
7
8
.
6
2
3
.
5
4
2
1
.
6
8
6
.
1
3
2
4
.
4
4
6
.
0
0
5
.
1
8
3
.
1
6
1
7
.
0
2
4
.
1
5
2
0
.
1
3
5
.
5
0
L
o
w
2
.
5
0
1
.
3
1
2
.
9
4
3
.
0
2
1
.
6
6
0
.
7
8
6
.
2
3
2
.
5
7
1
4
.
1
8
6
.
1
0
1
4
.
7
2
5
.
0
9
3
.
7
3
1
.
8
3
1
1
.
2
3
3
.
8
5
1
3
.
0
6
4
.
7
5
A
c
r
o
s
s
4
.
8
3
1
.
5
6
5
.
5
1
2
.
4
7
4
.
3
4
1
.
0
1
9
.
7
7
3
.
3
4
2
1
.
7
4
4
.
6
5
2
4
.
4
5
4
.
6
8
4
.
9
4
2
.
8
8
1
6
.
2
3
2
.
5
3
2
0
.
1
1
4
.
1
7
F
a
r
H
i
g
h
1
9
.
2
3
9
.
3
4
2
0
.
8
5
7
.
2
0
1
9
.
9
2
4
.
5
0
3
0
.
5
0
9
.
1
2
3
7
.
2
2
1
3
.
2
5
3
8
.
8
8
9
.
0
5
1
1
.
2
7
6
.
7
8
1
6
.
3
6
8
.
4
4
1
8
.
9
6
8
.
3
4
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
9
.
7
8
3
.
8
3
1
1
.
1
6
6
.
3
0
1
0
.
5
2
4
.
0
8
1
5
.
6
6
6
.
2
1
2
2
.
4
7
1
1
.
2
0
2
3
.
1
7
9
.
9
6
5
.
8
8
5
.
3
2
1
1
.
3
1
6
.
6
0
1
2
.
6
5
7
.
4
0
L
o
w
6
.
7
8
3
.
0
5
7
.
5
3
6
.
4
8
4
.
0
0
4
.
7
8
1
0
.
7
8
4
.
0
1
1
4
.
6
8
3
.
6
7
1
2
.
9
2
5
.
8
8
3
.
9
2
2
.
6
6
7
.
6
1
4
.
7
0
8
.
9
1
4
.
8
8
A
c
r
o
s
s
1
1
.
9
5
3
.
7
7
1
3
.
1
8
5
.
6
9
1
1
.
4
8
2
.
5
5
1
8
.
9
5
3
.
7
7
2
4
.
7
9
8
.
0
5
2
4
.
9
9
7
.
2
1
7
.
0
2
3
.
5
6
1
1
.
6
1
3
.
9
3
1
3
.
5
1
6
.
1
6
N
o
t
e
.
S
R
L

s
e
l
f
-
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
;
P
r
e

p
r
e
t
e
s
t
;
P
o
s
t

p
o
s
t
t
e
s
t
;
I
m
p
r
o
v
e

p
o
s
t
t
e
s
t
m
i
n
u
s
p
r
e
t
e
s
t
.
Table 3
Improvement Effect Sizes by Measure, Initial Achievement
Status, and Treatment
Measure
Initial
status
Contrast
Control vs.
transfer
Control vs.
transfer SRL
Transfer vs.
transfer SRL
Immediate High 1.91 2.29 1.11
Average 1.78 2.47 0.92
Low 1.83 2.68 0.33
Across 1.98 2.81 1.05
Near High 1.75 2.40 1.04
Average 1.22 1.81 0.55
Low 1.24 2.18 0.35
Across 1.41 2.43 0.89
Far High 0.47 0.87 0.25
Average 0.54 0.81 0.12
Low 0.69 1.17 0.21
Across 0.72 1.18 0.27
Note. SRL self-regulated learning strategies.
310
FUCHS ET AL.
T
a
b
l
e
4
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
I
t
e
m
s
b
y
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
a
t
u
s
a
n
d
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
I
t
e
m
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
s
t
a
t
u
s
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
L
S
D
t
r
e
a
t
L
S
D
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

S
R
L
A
c
r
o
s
s
F
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
a
T
r
e
a
t
b
T
r
e
a
t

I
n
i
t
i
a
l
c

I
k
n
o
w
h
o
w
t
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
k
i
l
l
s
I
l
e
a
r
n
H
i
g
h
1
.
3
6
0
.
3
5
1
.
3
0
0
.
3
6
1
.
1
1
0
.
2
4
1
.
2
2
0
.
3
2
0
.
7
0
3
.
8
1
*
*
0
.
5
1
C

S
R
L
t
o
n
e
w
k
i
n
d
s
o
f
m
a
t
h
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.

A
v
e
r
a
g
e
1
.
2
0
0
.
1
0
1
.
1
5
0
.
1
8
1
.
1
1
0
.
1
9
1
.
1
5
0
.
1
6
L
o
w
1
.
3
2
0
.
1
9
1
.
2
2
0
.
1
8
1
.
0
8
0
.
1
3
1
.
2
1
0
.
1
9
A
c
r
o
s
s
1
.
2
6
0
.
1
8
1
.
2
2
0
.
1
6
1
.
1
0
0
.
1
0
1
.
1
9
0
.
1
6

I
l
e
a
r
n
e
d
a
l
o
t
a
b
o
u
t
m
a
t
h
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
H
i
g
h
1
.
5
9
0
.
4
1
1
.
3
0
0
.
4
1
1
.
1
1
0
.
2
1
1
.
3
3
0
.
4
0
3
.
0
5
*
1
3
.
3
1
*
*
*
1
.
3
2
C

S
R
L
H

L
s
o
l
v
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
y
e
a
r
.

A
v
e
r
a
g
e
1
.
6
9
0
.
4
0
1
.
1
3
0
.
1
9
1
.
3
8
0
.
3
3
1
.
4
0
0
.
3
9
L
o
w
1
.
9
0
0
.
3
4
1
.
2
7
0
.
2
5
1
.
4
9
0
.
3
2
1
.
5
6
0
.
4
0
A
c
r
o
s
s
1
.
7
3
0
.
2
0
1
.
2
3
0
.
2
2
1
.
3
3
0
.
1
8
1
.
4
3
0
.
2
9

W
h
e
n
I
d
o
m
a
t
h
,
I
t
h
i
n
k
a
b
o
u
t
H
i
g
h
1
.
7
4
0
.
4
9
1
.
6
3
0
.
1
7
1
.
3
6
0
.
2
9
1
.
5
7
0
.
3
7
1
.
4
5
3
.
8
8
*
*
0
.
2
1
C

S
R
L
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
m
y
w
o
r
k
i
s
g
e
t
t
i
n
g
b
e
t
t
e
r
.

A
v
e
r
a
g
e
1
.
5
9
0
.
4
4
1
.
4
7
0
.
3
3
1
.
3
5
0
.
2
3
1
.
4
7
0
.
3
4
L
o
w
1
.
7
6
0
.
2
4
1
.
6
0
0
.
2
3
1
.
4
6
0
.
3
1
1
.
6
1
0
.
2
8
A
c
r
o
s
s
1
.
6
9
0
.
2
7
1
.
5
7
0
.
1
7
1
.
3
9
0
.
2
0
1
.
5
5
0
.
2
4

I
w
o
r
k
e
d
h
a
r
d
t
h
i
s
y
e
a
r
s
o
I
c
o
u
l
d
H
i
g
h
1
.
3
6
0
.
4
7
1
.
5
1
0
.
2
5
1
.
1
5
0
.
2
5
1
.
3
4
0
.
3
6
1
.
2
4
5
.
5
2
*
*
0
.
5
6
C

S
R
L
g
e
t
b
e
t
t
e
r
i
n
m
a
t
h
.

A
v
e
r
a
g
e
1
.
3
4
0
.
3
1
1
.
2
8
0
.
4
1
1
.
1
1
0
.
1
5
1
.
2
4
0
.
3
1
L
o
w
1
.
5
4
0
.
3
0
1
.
4
5
0
.
3
3
1
.
1
4
0
.
2
2
1
.
3
8
0
.
3
3
A
c
r
o
s
s
1
.
4
1
0
.
1
4
1
.
4
1
0
.
2
7
1
.
1
4
0
.
1
4
1
.
3
2
0
.
2
3
N
o
t
e
.
L
o
w
s
c
o
r
e
s
a
r
e
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
.
S
R
L

s
e
l
f
-
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
;
L
S
D

l
e
a
s
t
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
;
C

c
o
n
t
r
o
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
;
T

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
;
H

h
i
g
h
-
a
c
h
i
e
v
i
n
g
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
;
A

a
v
e
r
a
g
e
-
a
c
h
i
e
v
i
n
g
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
;
L

l
o
w
-
a
c
h
i
e
v
i
n
g
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
a
I
n
i
t
i
a
l

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

i
n
i
t
i
a
l
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
t
u
s
(
d
f

2
,
4
2
)
.
b
T
r
e
a
t

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
(
d
f

2
,
2
1
)
.
c
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

I
n
i
t
i
a
l
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
a
t
u
s
(
d
f

4
,
4
2
)
.
*
p

.
0
5
8
.
*
*
p

.
0
5
.
*
*
*
p

.
0
0
1
.
311
MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM SOLVING
year, 0.23, 1.14, and 0.92; for I know how to transfer skills I
learn to new kinds of math problems, 2.38, 2.26, and 0.50; for
When I do math, I think about whether my work is getting
better, 0.54, 1.30, and 1.20; and for I worked hard this year so I
could get better in math, 0.00, 1.93, and 1.35. (We found a nearly
significant main effect for students initial achievement status on
the question concerning knowledge about transferring skills; with
LSD follow-up, across conditions, HA and AA students scored
comparably but lower than LA students.)
What About Students With Disabilities?
As shown in Table 5, treatment groups were comparable on
demographics. Groups were also comparable on pretreatment
scores: F(2, 37) 1.35 for immediate transfer, 0.93 for near
transfer, and 0.89 for far transfer. By contrast, on improvement
scores, treatment effects were obtained for immediate transfer,
F(2, 37) 6.47, p .01 (Fisher LSD post hoc procedure:
control transfer transfer plus SRL) and for near transfer, F(2,
37) 3.81, p .05 (Fisher LSD post hoc procedure: control
transfer plus SRL; transfer comparable with both groups). On far
transfer, the treatment effect approached significance, F(2,
37) 2.35 (with LSD follow-up, the improvement of the control
group was inferior to that of the transfer-plus-SRL group). For
immediate-, near-, and far-transfer measures, respectively, the ES
for transfer versus control was 1.07, 0.51, and 0. 24; for transfer
plus SRL versus control, 1.43, 0.95, and 0.58; for transfer versus
transfer plus SRL, 0.23, 0.25, and 0.43.
Discussion
Results strengthen previous work (Fuchs et al., 2003) showing
that mathematical problem solving may be strengthened with
explicit transfer instruction that (a) broadens the categories by
which students group problems requiring the same solution meth-
ods (i.e., promotes a higher level of abstraction) and (b) prompts
Table 5
Demographics and Performance for Students With Disabilities by Treatment
Variable
Treatment
Control (n 12) Transfer (n 13) Transfer SRL (n 15)
n % M SD n % M SD n % M SD
Demographic
Gender (female) 3 25 3 23 5 33
Free or reduced lunch 11 92 10 77 9 60
Race (of color) 8 67 8 61 9 60
Disability
LD 8 67 9 69 14 93
MMR 1 8 0 0 0 0
BD 0 0 0 0 1 7
Speech 3 25 4 31 0 0
Math IEP 7 58 7 54 12 80
Reading IEP 8 67 8 61 14 93
Class behavior acceptable 5 42 10 77 5 33
Occasional problem 3 25 1 8 5 33
Frequent problem 4 33 2 15 5 33
Reading status
High 0 0 1 8 0 0
Average 2 17 2 15 3 20
Low 10 83 10 77 12 80
Math status
High 1 8 1 8 1 7
Average 0 0 4 31 3 20
Low 11 92 8 61 11 73
ESL 1 8 0 0 2 13
Performance
Immediate
Pre 2.50 2.81 2.46 3.77 1.00 1.25
Post 2.00 4.61 7.54 6.01 7.20 5.91
Improve 0.50 3.00 5.08 5.53 6.20 5.83
Near
Pre 2.50 3.24 2.40 2.87 1.28 1.71
Post 2.83 3.07 4.60 4.54 4.40 3.32
Improve 0.33 2.66 2.19 2.59 3.12 2.63
Far
Pre 4.71 3.90 5.69 4.99 3.40 4.54
Post 8.00 5.19 10.31 6.59 12.37 13.12
Improve 3.29 5.91 4.61 4.76 8.97 9.49
Note. SRL self-regulated learning strategies; LD learning disability; MMR mildly mentally retarded; BD behavior disorder; IEP individual
education plan; ESL English as a second language; Pre pretest; Post posttest; Improve posttest minus pretest.
312
FUCHS ET AL.
students to search novel problems for these broad categories (i.e.,
increases metacognition). On the immediate- and near-transfer
problem-solving measures, students in the problem-solving trans-
fer treatment reliably outgrew those in the control group. ESs were
large, regardless of students initial achievement status (1.91
and 1.98 for HA, 1.22 and 1.78 for AA, and 1.24 and 1.83 for LA)
and similar to those reported by Fuchs et al. On the far-transfer
measure, however, effects did not reliably favor the problem-
solving transfer treatment over the control group, as Fuchs et al.
had found (even though ESs were moderate to large: 0.47 for
HA, 0.54 for AA, and 0.69 for LA).
As results on the far-transfer measure suggest, a need exists to
enhance the strength of the problem-solving transfer treatment.
SRL represents one avenue to accomplish that goal due to its
capacity to strengthen the metacognitive value of the problem-
solving transfer treatment and to increase perseverance in the face
of challenge (Zimmerman, 1995). In fact, the combination of the
problem-solving transfer treatment and SRL promoted reliably
stronger improvement compared with the control group. ESs ex-
ceeded 2.00 standard deviations on immediate transfer, ranged
from 1.81 to 2.40 on near transfer, and fell between 0.81 and 1.17
on far transfer. So, whereas the problem-solving transfer treatment
alone failed to promote reliable effects on the far-transfer measure
(the most novel, and therefore truest, measure of mathematical
problem solving in this study), the combination of problem-solving
transfer and SRL succeeded in effecting this challenging outcome.
Of course, the study design also permits us to estimate the
specific contribution of SRL by comparing the improvement of
students who received the problem-solving transfer treatment com-
bined with SRL with those who received the problem-solving
transfer treatment alone. Results were mixed. On immediate trans-
fer, the contribution of SRL was evident. Children in the combined
treatment reliably outgrew those in the problem-solving treatment
without SRL. Interestingly, although the interaction between con-
dition and students initial achievement status was not significant,
ESs were larger for HA and AA students than for LA students.
This suggests the possibility of differential efficacy for SRL,
which Schunk (1996) hypothesized on the basis of research show-
ing that low-performing students may not monitor their perfor-
mance accurately (Borkowski & Buechel, 1983; Licht & Kistner,
1986). Moreover, this suggestive pattern on the immediate-transfer
measure was evident on the near-transfer task, where an interaction
between condition and initial achievement status was significant:
Although HA students in the combined treatment reliably outgrew
those in the problem-solving transfer treatment alone, with an ES
exceeding 1.00 standard deviation, the growth of the AA and LA
students was not statistically significant, with moderate ESs
of 0.55 and 0.35. Finally, on the far-transfer measure, distinctions
between the two experimental treatments were unreliable and
small for all three achievement groups, with ESs ranging be-
tween 0.12 and 0.25. Consequently, as the transfer demands in-
creased across the range of problem-solving measures, the specific
contribution of SRL became less clear.
On the one hand, the combined treatment with SRL promoted
far transfer when the problem-solving transfer treatment alone
failed to effect this challenging outcome. On the other hand, the
specific contribution of SRL, as revealed by comparing the two
experimental groups, was clear only on immediate transfer and, for
HA students, on near transfer. It is therefore instructive to examine
findings on the student questionnaire, which tapped SRL pro-
cesses. As results suggested, the explanation for the superior
growth of the combined treatment may reside with SRL. On three
of four questions assessing self-efficacy, goal orientation, self-
monitoring, and effort, students in the combined treatment scored
better (i.e., lower) than those in the problem-solving transfer
treatment without SRL (and better than those in the control group).
For I learned a lot about math problem solving this year, an
index of self-efficacy, the ES comparing the combined treatment
with the problem-solving transfer treatment without SRL was 0.92.
For When I do math, I think about whether my work is getting
better, a question designed to tap goal orientation and self-
monitoring, the ES was 1.20. Moreover, student effort was greater
in the combined condition with SRL, with students in the com-
bined treatment agreeing more strongly with the statement, I
worked hard this year so I could get better in math, compared
with students in the problem-solving treatment alone (ES 1.35).
In this way, SRL may have provided the key mechanism by which
the effects of the combined treatment were realized.
With respect to students with disabilities, a group of children
who receive most of their instruction in regular classrooms (U.S.
Department of Education, 1999) and for whom transfer effects are
most difficult to effect (e.g., White, 1984), both treatment groups
grew comparable amounts on immediate transfer and improved
more than the control group. ESs were large: for transfer versus
control, 1.07; for transfer plus SRL versus control, 1.43. Moreover,
although effects for the combined treatment on measures with
greater transfer challenge failed to achieve statistical significance
for the small sample of students with disabilities, the ESs of 0.95
on near transfer and 0.58 on far transfer are notable. In fact, the ES
for the combined treatment of 0.58, with lessons delivered to the
whole class, are almost identical to the ES reported on the same
far-transfer measure for small-group tutoring that incorporated the
problem-solving transfer treatment without SRL (Fuchs, Fuchs,
Hamlett, & Appleton, 2002). So, even for this lowest achieving
group of students, who may experience difficulty setting realistic
goals (Robbins & Harway, 1977; Tollefson, Tracy, Johnsen, Buen-
ning, & Farmer, 1982) and monitoring performance accurately
(e.g., Borkowski & Buechel, 1983; Licht & Kistner, 1986), the
promise of SRL is great. In the future, we might explore the power
of combining SRL with small-group service delivery to increase
the magnitude of effects documented in the present study.
In sum, instruction designed to increase student behaviors as-
sociated with SRL promotes SRL processes as well as learning.
The SRL literature is extended in four ways. First, we experimen-
tally established effects on mathematical problem solving, a do-
main potentially well suited for SRL due to demands for metacog-
nition and perseverance in the face of challenge (De Corte et al.,
2000). Second, we extended the range of SRL transfer effects.
Sawyer et al. (1992) demonstrated SRL effects on generalization
across settings, from pull-out instructional locations to the regular
class. In the present study, we demonstrated effects on a far-
transfer measure for which the format and content varied from
instructional materials. Third, we extended the external validity of
previous work: Our treatments were delivered in whole-class for-
mat to naturally constituted classes over a relatively long duration
of 4 months. Finally, we contributed to the SRL literature by
separating effects for HA, AA, and LA learners as well as those
with disabilities, thereby, documenting effects for the range of
313
MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM SOLVING
learners typically found in regular classrooms. At the same time,
the strength of effects may be mediated by students achievement
histories. This may be due to low achievers difficulty in setting
realistic goals (Robbins & Harway, 1977; Tollefson et al., 1982)
and monitoring performance (e.g., Borkowski & Buechel, 1983;
Licht & Kistner, 1986), to initially low SRL processes (e.g., Lester
& Garofalo, 1982; Schoenfeld, 1992; Silver et al., 1980), or to a
mismatch between the problem-solving curriculum and low
achievers level of development (Nicholls, 1979; Stipek, 1993).
Future work should be designed to examine the performance and
cognitive variables associated with treatment responsiveness.
References
Borkowski, J. G., & Buechel, F. P. (1983). Learning and memory strategies
in the mentally retarded. In M. Pressley & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive
strategy research: Psychological foundations (pp. 103128). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple
proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson
(Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 61100). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Cervone, D. (1993). The role of self-referent cognitions in goal setting,
motivation, and performance. In M. Rabinowitz (Ed.), Cognitive science
foundations of instruction (pp. 5795). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Eynde, P. O. (2000). Self-regulation: A
characteristic and a goal of mathematics education. In M. Boekaerts,
P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
687726). San Diego: Academic Press.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Appleton, A. C. (2002).
Explicitly teaching for transfer in small groups: Effects on the mathe-
matical problem-solving performance of students with mathematics dis-
abilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 90106.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C. L., Owen, R.,
et al. (2003). Explicitly teaching for transfer: Effects on third-grade
students mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 95, 293305.
Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social
research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). Components analysis of cognitive
strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students compositions
and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353361.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). Self-regulation and writing: Where do
we go from here? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 102114.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Lester, F. K., & Garofalo, J. (1982, April). Metacognitive aspects of
elementary students performance on arithmetic tasks. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-
tion, New York.
Licht, B. G., & Kistner, J. A. (1986). Motivational problems of learning-
disabled children: Individual differences and their implications for treat-
ment. In J. K. Torgesen & B. W. L. Wong (Eds.), Psychological and
educational perspectives on learning disabilities (pp. 225255). Or-
lando, FL: Academic Press.
Mayer, R. E., Quilici, J. L., & Moreno, R. (1999). What is learned in an
after-school computer club? Journal of Educational Computing Re-
search, 20, 223235.
Nicholls, J. G. (1979). Quality and equality in intellectual development:
The role of motivation in education. American Psychologist, 34, 1071
1084.
Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal setting and strategy
use on the writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing
and learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 230
240.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated
learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 3340.
Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curricu-
lum: New tools for educational reform. In B. R. Gifford & M. C.
OConnor (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude,
achievement, and instruction (pp. 3775). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Robbins, R. L., & Harway, N. I. (1977). Goal setting and reactions to
success and failure in children with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 10, 356362.
Rothman, R. (1995). Measuring up: Standards, assessments, and school
reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking
mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24,
113142.
Sawyer, R. J., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1992). Direct teaching, strategy
instruction, and strategy instruction with explicit self-regulation: Effects
on the composition skills and self-efficacy of students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 340352.
Seaman, M., Levin, J., & Serlin, R. (1991). New developments in pairwise
multiple comparisons: Some powerful and practical procedures. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 110, 577586.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem
solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. A.
Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics learning and
teaching (pp. 334370). New York: Macmillan.
Schunk, D. H. (1982). Progress self-monitoring: Effects on childrens
self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 51,
8993.
Schunk, D. H. (1985). Participation in goal setting: Effects on self-efficacy
and skills of learning disabled children. The Journal of Special Educa-
tion, 19, 307317.
Schunk, D. H. (1986). Verbalization and childrens self-regulated learning.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 347369.
Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attributions in
academic settings. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-
regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational appli-
cations (pp. 7599). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during chil-
drens cognitive skill learning. American Educational Research Jour-
nal, 33, 359382.
Silver, E. A., Branca, N., & Adams, V. (1980). Metacognition: The missing
link in problem solving. In R. Karplus (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth
International Congress of Mathematics Education (pp. 429433). Bos-
ton: Birkhauser.
Stipek, D. (1993). Motivating underachievers: Makes them want to try.
Learning, 21(7), 3233.
Tollefson, N., Tracy, D. B., Johnsen, E. P., Buenning, M., & Farmer, A. W.
(1982, March). Teaching learning disabled adolescents to set realistic
goals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educa-
tional Research Association, New York.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). To assure the free, appropriate
public education of all children with disabilities: Twenty-first report to
congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
White, O. R. (1984). Descriptive analysis of extant research literature
concerning skill generalization and the handicapped. In M. Boer (Ed.),
Investigating the problem of skill generalization: Literature review
(pp. 119). Seattle: University of Washington, Washington Research
Organization.
314
FUCHS ET AL.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated aca-
demic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achieve-
ment: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 318.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than meta-cogni-
tion: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30, 217
222.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill:
Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91, 241250.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a struc-
tured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning
strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614628.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of
strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 284290.
Received October 25, 2001
Revision received December 10, 2002
Accepted December 11, 2002
315
MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM SOLVING