See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230067128

A Review of the Literature: Fraction Instruction for Struggling Learners in

Mathematics

Article  in  Learning Disabilities Research and Practice · May 2011

DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00330.x

CITATIONS READS
49 13,811

1 author:

Radhika Misquitta
The Gateway School of Mumbai
6 PUBLICATIONS   83 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

FABLe (Fluency Assessment and Benchmarking for Literacy in Education) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Radhika Misquitta on 15 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(2), 109–119

C 2011 The Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children

A Review of the Literature: Fraction Instruction for Struggling Learners in

Mathematics
Radhika Misquitta
University of Texas at Austin

Fractions are an essential foundational skill for future mathematics success (NMAP, 2008).
The purpose of this article was to review current instructional practices for teaching fractions
to struggling learners and to examine the quality and effectiveness of contemporary research
with a view to indicating directions for future research. A comprehensive search of literature
published between 1990 and 2008 resulted in the identification of 10 empirical studies that
targeted fraction skills for struggling learners. Results indicated that three interventions, found
to be effective for improving outcomes in mathematics for struggling learners, were also
effective for teaching fractions: graduated sequence, strategy instruction, and direct instruction.
In addition, explicit instruction was identified as necessary for improving students’ performance
in fractions. Overall, this review highlighted the paucity of research in this critical mathematical
content area.

Historically, fractions have been one of the most difficult
mathematical skills to master, for children with and with-
out difficulties (Behr, Wachsmuth, Post, & Lesh, 1984;
Hiebert, 1985; McLeod & Armstrong, 1982; Ni, 2001).
Struggling learners in mathematics (students with learning
disabilities [LD], mathematics learning disability (MLD),
low-achievement in mathematics, and at-risk for failure in
mathematics) are at an even greater disadvantage, as their per-
formance in mathematics has traditionally lagged at least two
grade levels below their peers (Wagner & Blackorby, 1996).
The National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP, 2008)
was established to identify areas of concern in mathematical
education in the United States and to provide directions to
ensure that graduates attain international standards in math-
ematics. The panel’s recent report indicated that at least
40 percent of middle school students experienced difficulty
with fractions, and nearly 50 percent of middle and high
school students struggled with elementary level fraction con-
tent. This finding poses a problem as fractions are considered
an essential foundational skill for “successful participation
in the contemporary American workforce” (NMAP, 2008,
p. 3–1) for completing day-to-day activities (e.g., modifying
recipes, ordering supplies) and for making important deci-
sions such as assessing risks associated with medical treat-
ments (Reyna & Brainerd, 2008; Subramaniam & Verma,
2009).
Difficulties with Fractions
Several researchers (e.g., Hiebert, 1985; Mack, 1995; Mix,
Levine, & Huttenlocher, 1999) have investigated why chil-
Requests for reprints should be sent to Radhika Misquitta, CUZ-INNS,
Bandra, Mumbai 400050, India. Electronic inquiries should be sent to rad-
hikamisquitta@gmail.com.
dren struggle with fractions. Hiebert (1985) attributes the
difficulty with fractions to a failure to connect form and
understanding. Children have an intuitive or informal knowl-
edge of fractions (Mack, 1990, 1995) but may not necessarily
associate their intuitive understanding of fractions with the
formal representation of fractions (NMAP, 2008).
Prior mathematical experiences, especially with whole
numbers, have been noted to hamper students’ understand-
ing of fractions (Ni & Zhou, 2005; NMAP, 2008; Pitkethly
& Hunting, 1996). Gallistel and Gelman (1992) reasoned
that because of students’ previous experiences with count-
ing in discrete wholes, students fail to see how fractions fit
on the number line, and instead misread fractional quanti-
ties as two wholes, for example, reading 14 simply as "one
and four." Furthermore, computing with fractions, unlike
counting with whole numbers is not intuitive (Pitkethly
& Hunting, 1996), and children are at a loss when they
can no longer use their fingers to compute (Wu, 2008).
Other familiar activities, such as halving values, a frac-
tion activity in the early grades (Pothier & Sawada, 1983),
can function as a barrier when children have to create
fractions with odd denominators (Pitkethly & Hunting,
1996).
Another obstacle to mastery is the representation of frac-
tions as part–whole relationships (NMAP, 2008). Pictorial
representations of fractions in early grades usually depict
fractions as being parts of a whole, such as slices of a pie,
making it difficult for children to conceptualize improper
fractions such as 98 . This part–whole model may negatively
impact students’ understanding of fractions as continuous
and infinitely divisible (Behr, Lesh, Post, & Silver, 1983;
Hiebert & Tonnessen, 1978). The part–whole model also
inhibits other interpretations of fractions, such as fractions
as fair shares (Pitkethly & Hunting, 1996). For example,
the fraction two-thirds is understood only as two parts of
a pie divided into thirds, and not as each person’s share
110 RADHIKA MISQUITTA: FRACTION INSTRUCTION FOR STRUGGLING LEARNERS
when two wholes are shared among three (Charalambous &
Pitta-Pantazi, 2007).
Struggling Learners
In addition to difficulties all students face with fractions, cer-
tain characteristics of students with LD as well as of strug-
gling learners further contribute to their difficulties working
with fractions. Students with LD have limited working mem-
ory capacity (Geary, Hoard, Byrd-Craven, Nugent, & Num-
tee, 2007; NMAP, 2008) that impacts their ability to compute
with fraction problems as well as to solve word problems
(Hecht, Close, & Santisi, 2003). Grobecker (1999) noted that
when compared to their peers without disabilities, students
with LD tended to use inferior strategies for solving prob-
lems involving fractions. Woodward, Baxter, & Robinson
(1999), in their analyses of students’ problem-solving pro-
cesses, noted that children with LD tended to overgeneralize
whole number strategies to fractions, simply adding denom-
inators and numerators as separate wholes.
While low-achievers and students at-risk for failure may
perform relatively better in mathematics when compared with
students with LD (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007;
NMAP, 2008), fluency in processing numerical information
for low-achievers and students at-risk is still less than that
of their average-achieving peers. Low-achievers experience
difficulties due to inappropriate and inadequate prior expe-
riences, cognitive processes such as attention, and poor mo-
tivation (NMAP, 2008), characteristics that impact perfor-
mance in fractions. Given the challenges students with LD
and other struggling learners face with fractions, it is essen-
tial to identify interventions that target performance in this
critical foundational skill.
Fraction Instruction
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Stan-
dards (NCTM, 1989, 2000, 2006), a guiding force in math-
ematics curriculum development (Blank and Dalkilic, 1992;
Woodward & Montague, 2002) recommends that fractional
content incorporates understanding of fractions as part of the
number line, understanding of the relationship of fractions
to whole numbers, fraction equivalence, and proficiency and
fluency with addition, subtraction, multiplication, and divi-
sion of proper, improper, and mixed fractions. According
to the benchmarks outlined by the NMAP (2008), students
should be fluent in identifying and representing fractions by
the end of grade 4, comparing magnitudes of fractions and
adding and subtracting of fractions by the end of grade 5,
multiplication and division of fractions by the end of grade 6,
and all operations with positive and negative fractions by the
end of grade 7.
The NMAP (2008) recommended that development of
conceptual and procedural knowledge was essential in mas-
tery of fractions. Conceptual knowledge refers to creating
links between discrete pieces of knowledge, linking new
information to previous knowledge, and recognizing rela-
tionships and commonalities among different pieces of in-
formation (Miller & Hudson, 2007). Conceptual knowledge
of fractions includes comparing and judging the magnitudes
of fractions, understanding fraction representation, and de-
termining fraction equivalence (NMAP, 2008). Procedural
knowledge refers to the “ability to follow a set of sequential
steps to solve a mathematical task” (Miller & Hudson, 2007,
p. 50). Procedural knowledge with fractions involves adding,
subtracting, multiplying, and dividing fractional quantities
and algorithms to solve computation and word problems.
The development of conceptual and procedural knowledge is
an iterative process and gains in one type of knowledge lead
to an improvement in the other (Rittle-Johnson, Siegler, &
Alibali, 2001).
Specifically for struggling learners, while no review to
date has examined effective instructional practices in frac-
tions for this category of students, syntheses of effective
instructional practices in mathematics have incorporated in-
terventions targeting fractions (e.g., Baker, Gersten, & Lee,
2002; Gersten et al., 2009; Kroesbergen & Van Luit, 2003;
Maccini, Mulcahy, & Wilson, 2007; Miller, Butler & Lee,
1998; NMAP, 2008; Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998). The NMAP
(2008), in its meta-analysis of effective instructional prac-
tices, recommended the following to enhance mathematics
instruction for struggling learners: using explicit and sys-
tematic instruction including step-by-step explanations by
teachers, providing explicit modeling and demonstration of
strategies, controlling task difficulty, providing specific feed-
back, and multiple opportunities for guided and independent
practice; using concrete and visual representations; imple-
menting collaborative learning practices; using think alouds;
setting high but reasonable expectations; and providing fre-
quent practice computing basic facts. Recommendations by
the Panel (NMAP, 2008) are consistent with the What Works
Clearinghouse (WWC) Response to Intervention (RtI) guide
to effective mathematics instruction for struggling learners
(Gersten et al., 2009). In particular, the guide strongly recom-
mends the use of explicit teaching practices including mod-
eling, guided practices, independent practice, feedback, and
cumulative reviews of previous mathematics skills taught.
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this review is to examine current practices
for teaching fractions to struggling learners. Given the im-
portance and need for fractions in our lives, it would be ben-
eficial to examine whether effective practices for teaching
mathematics in general are effective for teaching fractions.
A secondary and related purpose is to investigate the quality
and effectiveness of the existing research in order to pro-
vide suggestions for future directions in research on fraction
instruction.
Operational Definitions
Fraction Instruction
For the purpose of this review, the term fraction refers to
common fractions, and not related concepts in working with

decimals, percents, ratio, or proportion. Instruction includes
interventions that require students to manipulate fractions
(i.e., add, subtract, multiply, divide), to examine the equiva-
lence, or to compare the magnitudes of fractions.
Struggling Learners
The term struggling learners are an umbrella term including
students with LD, MLD, low-achievement in mathematics,
and at-risk for failure in mathematics as identified by the
study. Both groups, students with LD and those with low
achievement in mathematics were selected because (1) re-
searchers have reported that although the problems experi-
enced by students with LD tend to be more severe than those
of low-achieving students (Geary et al., 2007), instructional
practices to improve performance for students in both cat-
egories are similar and the two groups are often combined
(NMAP, 2008); (2) given the small body of literature ad-
dressing fraction instruction, it seemed important to capture
all relevant literature in fractions.
METHODOLOGY
For this review, intervention studies addressing performance
in fractions for struggling learners in mathematics and pub-
lished in peer-reviewed journals were reviewed. The search
for relevant literature was conducted in three steps (1) a
search of electronic databases, (2) examination of previously
published related syntheses and references to related articles,
and (3) a hand search of selected relevant journals. Studies
that met the following criteria were included in the review:
1. Only studies published in peer-reviewed journals af-
ter 1990 were selected to distinguish research reflect-
ing current NCTM (1989, 2000) standards. The peer-
reviewed criterion was set as an initial gateway to help
identify studies of higher methodological quality. In
addition, the methodology employed in the studies
was also reviewed, the specific details of which are
included in the results section.
2. Empirical studies investigating the efficacy of frac-
tion instruction with struggling learners employing
experimental, quasi-experimental, single-subject, and
qualitative methods were included.
3. Only outcome measures assessing performance in
fractions (problem solving or computation) were in-
cluded. Measures that assessed related skills such
as decimals (see Hiebert, Wearne, & Taber, 1991;
Woodward et al., 1999), or those that did not examine
performance in fractions as an outcome measure (see
Baker, Young, & Martin, 1990) were excluded.
4. Studies included struggling learners (see operational
definition) in the sample. Only disaggregated results
for struggling learners were included wherever possi-
ble. Studies in which the number of struggling learn-
ers constituted less than 50 percent of the total sam-
ple, and studies that did not disaggregate data were
included if the interventions were designed to target
LEARNING DISABILITIES PRACTICE 111
struggling learners as well as the general population
(e.g., Jordan, Miller, & Mercer, 1999). This decision
was made on the basis of the purpose statement, ra-
tionale, and literature review.
5. The intervention focused on common fractions (see
operational definition) and was conducted in a school
setting including the general education classroom,
special education classroom, or resource room.
6. Only studies conducted in the United States were
included to facilitate comparison across studies and
context.
First, a computer search of two databases, ERIC and
PsychINFO, was conducted, to locate studies published be-
tween 1990 and June 2008, using the search terms learning
disab∗ , learning difficult∗ , mild disab∗ , math disab∗ , slow
learner, low-achiever, at-risk, struggling learner, mathemat-
ics, arithmetic, and fractions, in various combinations. This
electronic search resulted in a total of 1,838 abstracts of
which 30 studies, whose abstracts met the criteria for inclu-
sion, were selected for further review. The participant de-
scription, methods, and result sections of these studies were
then further examined to determine eligibility for this review.
Next, bibliographies of syntheses in mathematics identi-
fied through the electronic search, (see Baker, Gersten, &
Lee, 2002; Kroesbergen & Van Luit, 2003; Kunsch, Jiten-
dra, & Sood, 2007; Maccini & Hughes, 1997; Maccini et
al., 2007; Montague, 2007; Xin & Jitendra, 1999) as well
as reference sections of articles that met the search crite-
ria were examined, to identify studies that had might have
been missed through the electronic search. Finally, a hand
search of major journals in the field of special education
(namely Education and Treatment of Children, Exceptional
Children, Learning Disability Quarterly, Learning Disabili-
ties Research and Practice, Journal of Learning Disabilities,
Journal of Special Education, Remedial and Special Edu-
cation, Review of Educational Research) and mathematics
(Journal for Research in Mathematics Education) was con-
ducted to ensure all relevant articles had been included. Ten
studies met the final inclusion criteria for this review. The
majority of the 30 studies were excluded for the following
reasons: they did not specifically target fractions and oper-
ations in fractions (see Manalo, Bunnell, & Stillman, 2000;
Owen & Fuchs, 2002; Rittle-Johnson et al., 2001; Woodward
et al., 1999); did not disaggregate results for fractions (see
Bottge, Rueda, Serlin, Hung, & Kwon, 2007); or did not in-
clude struggling learners as defined by this study (see Hiebert
et al., 1991; Mack, 1990).
Data Analysis
Coding Procedures
Once studies had been identified, they were coded for partic-
ipant information (socioeconomic status of students, sample
size, age, grade, gender, and disability), design description
(purpose, design method, assignment of students for experi-
mental and quasi-experimental designs, and fidelity checks),
quality indicators of the methodology and design (such as
112 RADHIKA MISQUITTA: FRACTION INSTRUCTION FOR STRUGGLING LEARNERS
internal validity, fidelity of treatment, description of out-
come measures), intervention characteristics (fraction skills
targeted, procedural, or conceptual knowledge), appropriate-
ness of analysis procedures, and reported findings. Studies
were coded as primarily addressing conceptual knowledge if
they included activities to compare magnitudes of fractions,
fraction equivalence, or application of skills to real-world
problems. Studies were coded as primarily addressing proce-
dural knowledge if they employed algorithms and strategies
to aid problem solving. The code sheet was modeled on one
developed and used in previous syntheses (see Kim, Vaughn,
Wanzek, & Wei, 2004; Vaughn, Kim, Sloan, Hughes, El-
baum, & Sridhar, 2003) and on the basis of recommenda-
tions by Odom, Brantlinger, Gersten, Horner, Thompson, &
Harris (2005).
Interrater Reliability
A graduate student independently coded 30 percent of the
studies (n = 3). An interrater reliability of 96 percent was
established (agreements ÷ [agreements + disagreements])
(Cohen & Swerdlik, 2005).
Computation of Effect Sizes
Effect sizes in this review were calculated to enhance de-
scription and not as a means of comparison across studies.
Comparative ability of effect sizes across studies was limited
given the small corpus of studies, and the varying sample
sizes and methodologies employed.
Effect sizes were calculated for both experimental and
single-subject studies. Three studies (Bottge & Hasselbring,
1993; Flores & Kaylor, 2007; Jordan et al., 1999) did not
provide adequate information to calculate effect sizes. For
these studies, descriptive findings are reported instead.
Cohen’s d was calculated when researchers reported
means and standard deviations for intervention and control
groups as the difference between the mean posttest score of
the intervention group and mean posttest score of the con-
trol group, divided by the pooled standard deviation (Cooper
& Reach, 2004). For studies that reported more than one
outcome measure, the mean effect size (E.SM ) was calcu-
lated (see Kroesbergen & Luit, 2003). The adjusted mean,
as reported in the study, was used to calculate effect sizes
for studies that used pretest scores as a covariate. For one
study (see Butler, Miller, & Mercer, 2003), d could not be
calculated as the authors employed multivariate statistics.
Eta squared (η2 ), as reported by the authors, was therefore
included as an effect size.
Lastly, the percent of nonoverlapping data (PND; Scruggs,
Mastropieri, & Casto, 1987) was computed for single-subject
studies as the number of data points in the treatment and
maintenance phases that exceeded the highest baseline data
point in an expected direction, divided by the total number
of data points in the treatment and maintenance phase, and
multiplied by 100. While there is no consensus on the type of
effect size that adequately reflects results from single-subject
studies, (Swanson & Lee, 2000), nonparametric measures
appear to be better estimates of effect sizes and are easier to
interpret than regression-based methods (Campbell, 2004).
RESULTS
Ten studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, five em-
ploying treatment/ comparison designs, three single-group
designs, and two single-subject designs. A total of 195 par-
ticipants identified as struggling learners (108 LD; 24 other
disabilities; 64 low-achievers and/or students at-risk for fail-
ure) were included in these studies. With the exception of
one study (see Jordan et al., 1999), all interventions targeted
students in middle and high school.
Quality of Studies
The robustness of a study significantly influences the level
of confidence that can be placed in the results (Press-
ley & Harris, 1994). As a first step, the quality of the
studies was examined. Quality was evaluated on the ba-
sis of recommendations by Gersten et al. (2005), Horner,
Carr, Halle, McGee, Odom, and Wolery (2005), and Odom
et al. (2005). Information on the quality of the stud-
ies served to guide the conclusions drawn in this article
as well as to make recommendations for future research.
Table 1 presents a description of intervention and study char-
acteristics. No study included in this review met all quality
indicators. Four of the 10 studies met three of the four qual-
ity indicators (Bottge, 1999; Butler et al., 2003; Joseph &
Hunter, 2001; Kelly, Gersten, & Carnine, 1990). When dis-
cussing interventions therefore, results from the four studies
of higher quality are emphasized. Readers should consider
the study findings with caution based on the limited number
of studies included, and the even smaller subset of studies
meeting quality methodology indicators.
Internal Validity
When discussing the internal validity, Gersten and colleagues
(2005) indicate randomization as the gold standard to achieve
to make confident causal relationships. Two of the 10 studies
(Bottge, 1999; Kelly et al., 1990) in this review used random
assignment of students to treatment and control conditions.
When random assignment was not possible, Gersten,
Baker, and Lloyd (2000) suggest measures such as adequate
pretesting, the use of pretests as covariates, and controlling
extraneous variables such as teacher influence. Two of the
10 studies (see Table 1; Bottge, Heinrichs, Mehta, & Hung,
2002; Butler et al., 2003) employed measures to improve
comparability of groups. Butler and colleagues (Butler et al.,
2003) randomly assigned classes to conditions and Bottge
and colleagues (Bottge et al., 2002) first matched students
within each class and randomly assigned pairs to groups
within each class. Furthermore, both studies counterbalanced
teachers across conditions, as well as included pretest scores
as a covariate in the analyses, to better equate groups.
Single-subject studies establish internal validity by re-
porting at least three demonstrations of experimental control
 LEARNING DISABILITIES PRACTICE 113

TABLE 1
Intervention and Study Characteristics

Intervention
Study Participants Grade Design Dependent Variable Focus Results

Bottge (1999) 3 LD; three other 8 Experimental: Score on computation (rα =.94) Problem solving No significant difference
disabilities; 11 Pretest–posttest and word problem test between groups;
struggling control group design (rα =.90) assessing addition E.S. M = −.28
learners in and subtraction of fractions
math
T1: Anchored
Instruction
(fraction of the
cost video)
CI: Word problem
instruction
(textbook
instruction)
Bottge & 17 with 9 Quasi-experimental: Score on computation (rα =.98) Computation of Significant increase from
Hasselbring disabilities Pretest–posttest and word problem test fractions pretest to posttest (p < .01)
(1993) single-group design (rα =.95) assessing addition
and subtraction of fractions
T1: Direct instruction
(videodisc of
mastering
fractions)
Bottge, Heinrichs, 7 LD, 1 ED, 34 7 Quasi-experimental: Score on computation (rα =.91) Problem solving No significant difference
Mehta, & Hung without Pretest–posttest and word problem test between groups;
(2002) disabilities control group design (rα =.92) assessing addition E.S. M = −.25
and subtraction of fractions
T1: Enhanced
anchored
instruction
(fraction of the
cost video)
Butler, Miller, 42 LD, eight
Crehan, Battitt, & other
Pierce (2003) disabilities;
6, 7, 8 Quasi- Score on three subsets Concepts in fractions (fraction Significant
experimental: of CIBS-R and two equivalence) difference
Pre–post experimenter- using
control group developed subtests MANOVA in
design assessing favor of CRA
representing (p < .05), E.S.
fractions, computing = .26; higher
equivalent fractions, means for
and word problems CRA group
on fraction on all subtests
equivalence
T1: Graduated
sequence (CRA)
C1: Graduated
sequence (RA)
Flores & Kaylor 30 at-risk for 7 Quasi-experimental: Percent correct on computation Computation of Significant improvement from
(2007) failure in math Pretest–posttest test assessing addition, fractions pretest to posttest (p < .01),
single-group design subtraction, multiplication of E.S. not reported
fractions
T1: Direct
instruction
(corrective
mathematics,
basic fractions)
Gersten and Kelly 26 LD Secondary Pretest–posttest Percent correct on 30-item test Computation of Average percent change from
(1992) single-group design (rα = .98;r x x = .96) fractions pretest to posttest = 51.5%
measuring fraction analysis,
adding and subtracting
fractions and mixed numbers,
computing equivalent fractions,
and comparing fractions
Continued
114 RADHIKA MISQUITTA: FRACTION INSTRUCTION FOR STRUGGLING LEARNERS

TABLE 1
Continued.

Intervention
Study Participants Grade Design Dependent Variable Focus Results

T1: Direct
instruction
(videodisc of
mastering
fractions)
Jordan et al. (1999) 5 LD, 1 ED, 6 4 Experimental: Score on 80-item test assessing Concepts and Significant increase in
OHI Pretest–posttest identification skills, computation performance in favor of
control group design comparison skills, equivalence of fractions treatment group over
skills, addition skills and control group from pretest
subtraction skills to posttest (p < .001),
posttest 1 to posttest 2 (p <
.05), and posttest 2 to
posttest 3 (p < .05)
T1: Graduated
sequence
(concrete-
semiconcrete-
abstract or
CRA)
C1: Traditional
instruction
Joseph & Hunter 3 LD 8 Single subject: Score on 10 item fraction Computation of Improvement for all students
(2001) Multiple baseline computation test addition and fractions from baseline to
across participants subtraction of fractions maintenance. PND =
design. 96.6%
T1: Strategy
instruction (cue
card strategy)
Kelly et al. (1990) 17 LD, 11 LA 9 Percent correct on 12-item test Computation of Positive results in favor of
(rα =.98) measuring writing fractions treatment group (p < .01)
fractions from pictures, E.S. = 1.24
distinguishing numerator from
denominator, adding and
subtracting fractions with like
denominators, multiplying
fractions
T1: Direct instruction
(videodisc of
mastering
fractions)
C1: Basal curriculum
(textbook
instruction)
Test & Ellis (2005) 3 LD, 3 ID 8 Single subject: Delayed Percent correct on LAP fractions Computation of Improvement for all students
multiprobe multiple strategy steps; percent correct fractions from baseline to
baseline across pairs on application of LAP strategy maintenance. PND =
of participants on fractions test 100%
design
T1: Strategy
instruction (LAP
fractions strategy)
Note: LD: learning disabilities; ID: intellectual disabilities: LA low achievers; ED: emotional disturbance; OHI: other health impairment; NR: not reported; T: treatment;
C: comparison condition; E.S.: effect size; rα : internal consistency reliability; r x x : parallel forms reliability; CIBS-R: Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills-Revised;
CRA: concrete-representational-abstract; RA: representational-abstract; LAP: (L)ook at the denominator and sign to determine if fractions were like or unlike, and what operation was
required; (A)sk themselves if the denominators would divide evenly into each other; and (P)ick a fraction type Radhika Misquitta is currently a doctoral candidate at the University
of Texas at Austin. She completed her Masters in Special Education from SNDT University, Mumbai. Her research interests are in mathematical instructional strategies for students
with disabilities.

(Horner et al., 2005). Only one of the two single-subject stud-
ies (see Table 1; Joseph & Hunter, 2001) met the criterion for
internal validity. Experimental control in the Test and Ellis
(2005) study was compromised as the authors had to change
from multiple-baseline to delayed multiple-baseline design
due to attrition.
Fidelity of Treatment
Fidelity of treatment or treatment integrity is another es-
sential element in understanding the effectiveness of the
intervention (Gersten et al., 2005). Treatment integrity
describes whether the intervention was implemented as

planned (Gresham, MacMillan, Beebe-Frankenberger, &
Bocian, 2000) and provides information necessary for repli-
cation. Seven of the 10 studies (see Table 1) reported that they
measured fidelity of implementation as well as described how
fidelity was established (Bottge, 1999; Bottge et al., 2002;
Bottge & Hasselbring, 1993; Butler et al., 2003; Flores &
Kaylor, 2007; Kelly et al., 1990; Test & Ellis, 2005).
Outcome Measure
When employing outcome measures, Gersten and colleagues
(2005) encourage the use of multiple measures to cap-
ture effects of the intervention. Experimenter-developed
tools and intervention-specific outcome measures can re-
flect performance specific to skills taught but tend to ele-
vate effect sizes when compared to standardized measures
(Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998). Gersten and colleagues recom-
mend, therefore, that studies incorporate both standardized
and experimenter-developed measures and report reliability
and validity information for both.
Only one study (see Table 1; Butler et al., 2003) incor-
porated subtests from a standardized measure as well as re-
searcher developed subtests specific to the intervention. Six
of the 10 studies (Bottge, 1999; Bottge et al., 2002; Bottge
& Hasselbring, 1993; Butler et al., 2003; Gersten & Kelly,
1992; Kelly et al., 1990) reported test validity and reliability
information for dependent measures.
Social Validity
Social validity is estimating the “importance, effectiveness,
appropriateness and /or satisfaction” (Kennedy, 2005, p. 219)
of an intervention to the different stakeholders. Establish-
ing the social validity of an intervention is essential in the
field of special education as it separates clinical research
from applied, and speaks to the extent an intervention can be
adopted and used effectively in classroom settings (Horner
et al., 2005). Social validity can be measured in different
ways such as estimating need prior to the study, using typical
agents to deliver instruction, and measuring satisfaction and
needs met at the conclusion of the study.
Eight of the 10 studies (see Table 1) established social va-
lidity of the intervention (Bottge, 1999; Bottge et al., 2002;
Bottge & Hasselbring, 1993; Butler et al., 2003; Gersten &
Kelly, 1992; Joseph & Hunter, 2001; Kelly et al., 1990; Test
& Ellis, 2005) by employing a typical agent as the primary
interventionist. Two studies (see Butler et al., 2003; Test &
Ellis, 2005) enhanced social validity evidence by interview-
ing students at the conclusion of the study.
Results by Intervention Type
A total of four interventions (graduated sequence, anchored
instruction, strategy instruction, and direct instruction) for
teaching fractions to struggling learners emerged (E.S.
range = −.28 to 1.24; PND = 96.6, 100). Two interventions,
graduated sequence and anchored instruction, targeted con-
LEARNING DISABILITIES PRACTICE 115
ceptual knowledge (Bottge, 1999; Bottge et al., 2002; Butler
et al., 2003; Jordan et al., 1999) and two, strategy instruc-
tion and direct instruction, focused on procedural knowledge
(Bottge & Hasselbring, 1993; Flores & Kaylor, 2007; Gersten
& Kelly, 1992; Joseph & Hunter, 2001; Kelly et al., 1990;
Test & Ellis, 2005). Dependent measures primarily focused
on fraction computation skills. Four studies (Bottge, 1999;
Bottge et al., 2002; Bottge & Hasselbring, 1993; Butler et al.,
2003) also included measures assessing word problem solv-
ing, and two studies (Butler et al., 2003; Jordan et al., 1999)
assessed fraction concepts including equivalence, and com-
paring fractions. While describing the instructional practices
in this section, the emphasis is on interventions that met the
standards described in the quality indicators section.
Graduated Sequence
Butler and colleagues (2003) and Jordan et al. (1999) in-
vestigated a graduated sequence, concrete-representational-
abstract (CRA), to teach fractions, with positive results in
favor of CRA sequence (see Table 1). Results indicated that
students in the CRA group outperformed the control group
on outcomes measures (Butler et al., 2003) and were able to
maintain performance levels at least 2 weeks after the con-
clusion of the study (Jordan et al., 1999). CRA was noted to
be effective in teaching fraction computations (Jordan et al.,
1999) and the concept of fraction equivalence (E.S. = .26;
Butler et al., 2003).
A particularly well-designed study, Butler and colleagues
(Butler et al., 2003) employed the CRA sequence to teach
fraction equivalence to students with LD in grades 6, 7, and
8. The authors developed 10 lessons where students were
first introduced to fraction equivalence with concrete objects
such as commercially available fraction circles, construc-
tion paper, and white beans. In subsequent lessons, students
graduated to working with representational drawings of frac-
tional quantities such as circles and polygons, and finally, to
abstract algorithms. Students also practiced word problems
daily using the different manipulatives and abstractions. It is
important to note that as students moved through the grad-
uated sequence, the topics for the lessons also differed. The
overarching objective remained fraction equivalence, but stu-
dents were systematically introduced to working with proper,
improper, and mixed fractions.
Anchored Instruction
Bottge (1999) and Bottge and colleagues (Bottge et al., 2002)
compared the effectiveness of anchoring mathematics in-
struction using videodiscs of real-world problems, to typi-
cal instruction, for improving the problem-solving ability of
struggling learners (see Table 1). The authors assessed stu-
dent performance on fractions alone, as well as real-world
problem solving. Students in the anchored instruction con-
dition in both studies outperformed students taught using
typical instruction on measures assessing real-world prob-
lem solving, but not on measures of fraction performance
alone. The results related to real-word problem solving,
116 RADHIKA MISQUITTA: FRACTION INSTRUCTION FOR STRUGGLING LEARNERS
however, were not included in this review because students
were expected to use multiple mathematical operations such
as fractions and measurement, and results for fractions alone
could not be disaggregated. For measures assessing frac-
tion performance alone, neither study yielded significant ef-
fects in favor of the intervention group (E.S. range = −.25
to −.28).
The primary purposes of the studies by Bottge (1999)
and Bottge and colleagues (2002) were to develop students’
problem-solving abilities. In both studies, learning was pri-
marily student-directed, and the teacher served as a facilitator,
guiding students’ discussions, and providing feedback when
necessary. Neither study taught fractions explicitly to stu-
dents. Bottge (1999) and Bottge and colleagues (Bottge et al.,
2002) used instructional videos that presented students with
real-world problems, such as building a skateboard ramp, or
a bird’s cage, to improve students’ problem-solving perfor-
mance. Students worked in groups to solve problems, using
fractions, measurement, and money computations.
Strategy Instruction
The two single-subject studies (Joseph & Hunter, 2001; Test
& Ellis, 2005) employed multiple baseline designs to evaluate
the effectiveness of strategy instruction on the fraction per-
formance of struggling learners (see Table 1). Both studies
yielded positive effect sizes (PND = 96.6 and 100, respec-
tively) in favor of the strategy, and results were maintained
over time (3 and 6 weeks postintervention, respectively).
Joseph and Hunter (2001) also discussed how students with
differential planning abilities might apply the strategy differ-
ently. The performance of the student with lower than average
planning abilities compared to the students with average or
above average planning was scattered and he needed frequent
prompting to use the strategy consistently. The authors there-
fore suggested that students with low planning abilities may
require additional teacher mediation when using strategy in-
struction.
Interventions involved in the studies included a three-step
strategy with Joseph and Hunter (2001) using a cue card, and
Test and Ellis (2005) developing a mnemonic (L-ook at the
denominator and sign; A-sk yourself if the denominators will
divide evenly; P-ick a fraction type), to teach computation
of proper fractions to struggling learners. In both studies,
strategies required students to first identify whether the frac-
tions to be added or subtracted were like or unlike, and if
not, then to implement steps to make both fractions like.
Next, students were instructed to add or subtract fractions,
and finally to reduce to the lowest number. In addition to fol-
lowing the strategy, students in the Joseph and Hunter (2001)
study also monitored their progress daily by graphing their
performance.
Direct Instruction
Four studies (Bottge & Hasselbring, 1993; Flores & Kaylor,
2007; Gersten & Kelly, 1992; Kelly et al., 1990) investigated
the effectiveness of a direct instructional approach to teach-
ing fraction computations to struggling learners. The stud-
ies yielded positive results in favor of direct instruction (see
Table 1). Three studies (Bottge & Hasselbring, 1993; Gersten
& Kelly, 1992; Kelly et al., 1990) examined the effectiveness
of a videodisc instructional package, Mastering Fractions.
Master Fractions are based on the direct instruction ap-
proach and Flores and Kaylor (2007) employed a published
Direct Instruction curriculum, Corrective mathematics, ba-
sic fractions. The direct instruction approach was seen to be
more effective than traditional instruction (Flores & Kaylor,
2007; Kelly et al., 1990) and improved students’ performance
over time (Bottge & Hasselbring, 1993; Gersten & Kelly,
1992).
Kelly et al. (1990) employed a treatment/comparison de-
sign comparing performance of students taught using the
videodisc curriculum, Mastering Fractions, with traditional
instruction (E.S. = 1.24). The videodisc curriculum included
three key curriculum design variables: discriminating among
problem types, discriminating important concepts and termi-
nology, and using a wide range of examples. The curriculum
introduced step-by-step instructional strategies for different
problem types and provided opportunities for guided and
independent practice. Students moved to the next step only
once mastery was achieved. While the primary intervention
was the videodisc, the teacher played an important role, con-
trolling the pace of the lesson, and modifying the sequence of
lessons in the videodisc curriculum based on students’ needs
and progress.
DISCUSSION
Understanding and computing fractions is challenging for
struggling learners in mathematics (Groebecker, 1999). Iden-
tifying what interventions are available to teach fractions to
struggling learners and their effectiveness is critical because
fractions are considered an essential foundational skill for
future academic success (NMAP, 2008). The purpose of this
article was to summarize and describe the literature on in-
terventions for teaching fractions to struggling learners in
mathematics. As a part of the review, the quality of the stud-
ies were examined. Four significant patterns emerged from
this review:
First, three interventions were noted to improve students’
performance in fractions: graduated sequence, direct instruc-
tion, and strategy instruction. These three interventions have
repeatedly been identified by the literature as effective prac-
tices for teaching mathematics to struggling learners (Gersten
et al., 2009; Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998). Miller and Hud-
son (2007) examined approaches in mathematics to enhance
conceptual knowledge and discussed the CRA or graduated
sequence as one method associated with positive results.
Most recently, the WWC guide to RtI instruction (Gersten
et al., 2009) recommended the use of visual representations
and manipulatives to enhance mathematics instruction for
students struggling in mathematics. Swanson and Hoskyn
(1998) identified direct instruction and strategy instruction
as validated practices to teach struggling learners in their
exhaustive meta-analysis of intervention practices spanning
25 years. From the body of literature in this review, we see

that some interventions for improving overall performance
in mathematics are also effective for teaching fractions.
Second, in the studies reviewed here, implicit or incidental
teaching of fractions, did not improve performance on frac-
tion computation tasks, as demonstrated in the Bottge (1999)
and Bottge et al, (2002) studies. Anchored instruction as em-
ployed by Bottge (1999) and his colleagues (Bottge et al.,
2002) was designed to improve students’ problem-solving
skills using real-life problems. The authors did not provide
any explicit instruction in fraction computation skills. Results
were not effective to improve the performance in fractions
of struggling learners. However, in both studies, students in
the anchored instruction group improved their performance
in real-world problem solving when compared to the typi-
cal instruction group. The results of the Bottge (1999) and
Bottge et al. (2002) studies are consistent with the find-
ings of the NMAP (2008) that indicated that exposure to
real-world problems tended to improve performance in real-
world problems, but not in computational skills. This review
indicates the need for a more direct and explicit approach
when teaching fractions, such as the use of direct instruction
(see Bottge & Hasselbring, 1993; Flores & Kaylor, 2007;
Gersten & Kelly, 1992; Kelly et al., 1990). The WWC RtI
guide (Gersten et al., 2009) also strongly recommends the use
of explicit instructional practices such as think alouds, mod-
eling, guided practice, corrective feedback, and cumulative
reviews when teaching mathematics to struggling learners.
Third, this review reflects an emphasis on both procedu-
ral and conceptual knowledge in fractions. Interventions (see
Table 1) in this review emphasized both procedural (n = 6)
and conceptual knowledge (n = 4). Both are necessary. Con-
ceptual knowledge enables a learner to apply skills to differ-
ent situations and is “an essential component for dealing with
novel problems in a variety of settings” (Miller & Hudson,
2007, p. 49; NCTM, 2000). Procedural knowledge equips
a learner with an algorithm or steps to solve a mathemati-
cal problem (Miller & Hudson, 2007). The development of
conceptual and procedural knowledge go hand-in-hand and
increase in one type of knowledge lead to gains in the other
(Rittle-Johnson et al., 2001; Rittle-Johnson & Koedinger,
2009).
Finally, this review highlighted the relatively small body
of literature addressing instructional practices in fractions for
struggling learners (n = 10), as well as the need for higher
quality research. Of the 10 studies reviewed, no study met
all the quality indicators discussed in this review. Overall,
more research of high quality is needed in order to determine
the impact of an instructional strategy in fractions and place
confidence in the results of the study.
Implications for Practice
This review on fraction instruction has two primary instruc-
tional implications for educators: First, the NMAP (2008)
emphasizes the need for both conceptual and procedural
knowledge in fractions. Conceptual knowledge in fractions
involves understanding the different representations of frac-
tions, comparing magnitudes and ordering, and determining
fraction equivalence (NMAP, 2008). Procedural knowledge
LEARNING DISABILITIES PRACTICE 117
includes operations with fractions such as adding, subtract-
ing, multiplying, and dividing, as well as algorithms to solve
problems. Using the three approaches, the graduated se-
quence approach, strategy instruction, and direct instruction
seen to improve performance in this review, educators could
develop an intervention program that taps both conceptual
and procedural knowledge. When selecting skills to teach,
practitioners could make use of the benchmarks outlined by
the NMAP (2008) as a guide, emphasizing representation of
fractions in grade 4, comparing fractions, fraction equiva-
lence, and addition and subtraction of fractions in grade 5,
multiplication and division of fractions in grade 6, and finally
all operations with negative and positive fractions by grade 7.
Second, this review emphasizes the need for explicit teach-
ing of fractions skills. Educators can still meet the NCTM
(NCTM, 1989, 2000) focus on conceptual understanding by
using explicit teaching methods to teach concepts as demon-
strated by Butler and her colleagues (Butler et al., 2003). The
authors targeted conceptual understanding in mathematics,
making use of manipulatives and visual representations, and
structured each lesson around an explicit teaching frame-
work by reviewing previous skills taught, modeling, guided
practice of skills, opportunities for independent practice, and
providing corrective feedback. Researchers (Hudson, Miller,
& Butler, 2006) encourage teachers to combine the CRA
sequence with explicit instruction when teaching students
struggling in mathematics.
Limitations and Future Directions
The primary limitation of this review is the small corpus of
studies included in the analysis. While the purpose of this ar-
ticle was only to examine instructional practices for common
fractions, broadening the parameters to include interventions
with rational numbers such as decimals and percentages,
might indicate additional strategies that are effective. Fur-
thermore, as designs employed by the studies were so varied,
comparing across effect sizes was not meaningful. Future re-
search could consider examining only treatment/comparison
designs to identify effective practices.
Another limitation is that this review included a di-
verse population of students with disabilities as well as
low achievement. Limiting parameters to only students with
LD/MLD or only to low-achievers might identify interven-
tions that are differentially effective for these populations.
This review highlights the need for studies to incorporate
maintenance and generalization data when assessing the im-
pact of an intervention. The difficulties struggling learners
face with retaining information and skills, as well as trans-
ferring to novel situations has been repeated documented
in special education (Gersten & Baker, 1998; Kolligian &
Sternberg, 1987; NMAP, 2008). However, most studies in
this review examined the effectiveness of interventions using
only pre- and posttest data. No study reported generalization
data and only four studies (Butler et al., 2003; Jordan et al.,
1999; Joseph & Hunter, 2001; Test & Ellis, 2005) incorpo-
rated data on maintenance.
Finally, while this study focused on outcome mea-
sures to assess the impact of interventions, future research
118 RADHIKA MISQUITTA: FRACTION INSTRUCTION FOR STRUGGLING LEARNERS
could also establish how interventions meet current NCTM
standards (NCTM, 1989, 2000) in the field. Researchers
(Ginsburg-Block & Fantuzzo, 1998; Woodward & Montague,
2002) contend that areas emphasized in the NCTM stan-
dards, such as problem-solving skills, are areas of concern
for struggling learners too, and aligning interventions with
the standards is beneficial for students who have difficulties
in mathematics. Future research could examine intervention
programs that integrate methods seen to be effective to teach
struggling learners (such as explicit, direct instruction) along
with a more inquiry-based approaches so interventions for
this population are also aligned with the NCTM (2000) stan-
dards.
This review presents an overview of current instructional
practices to teach fractions to students struggling in mathe-
matics. While the corpus of studies reviewed is small, pat-
terns that emerge from this review serve an initial guide
to practitioners on effective instructional practices in frac-
tions, such as using the graduated sequence, strategy in-
struction, and direct instruction. Given the importance of
fractions in determining students’ future academic success
(NMAP, 2008), more research is needed to identify effective
instruction practices to teach this critical foundational skill
in mathematics.
REFERENCES
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. S. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research
on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary
School Journal, 103(1), 51–73.
Baker, J., Young, M., & Martin, M. (1990). The effectiveness of small-group
versus one-to-one remedial instruction for six students with learning
difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 91(1), 65–76.
Behr, M., Lesh, R., Post, T., & Silver, E. (1983). Rational number concepts.
In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematical concepts
and processes (pp. 91–125). New York: Academic Press.
Behr, M. J., Wachsmuth, I., Post, T. R., & Lesh, R. (1984). Order and equiv-
alence of rational numbers: A clinical teaching experiment. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 15(5), 323–341.
Blank, R. K., & Dalkilic, M. (1992). State policies on science and mathemat-
ics education 1992. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School
Officers.
∗
Bottge, B. A. (1999). Effects of contextualized math instruction on problem
solving of average and below-average achieving students. Journal of
Special Education, 33(2), 81–92.
∗
Bottge, B. A., & Hasselbring, T. S. (1993). A comparison of two ap-
proaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to ado-
lescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children, 59(6), 556–
511.
∗
Bottge, B. A., Heinrichs, M., Mehta, Z. D., & Hung, Y.-H. (2002). Weighing
the benefits of anchored math instruction for students with disabilities
in general education classes. Journal of Special Education, 35(4), 186–
200.
Bottge, B. A., Rueda, E., Serlin, R. C., Hung, Y.-H., & Kwon, J. M. (2007).
Shrinking achievement differences with achored math problems: Chal-
lenges and possibilities. The Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 31–
49.
∗
Butler, F. M., Miller, S. P., Crehan, K., Babbitt, B., & Pierce, T. (2003). Frac-
tion instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing
two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
18(2), 99–111.
Campbell, J. M. (2004). Statistical computation of four effect sizes for
single-subject designs. Behavior Modification, 28(2), 234–246.
Charalambous, C., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2007). Drawing on a theoretical
model to study students’ understandings of fractions. Educational Stud-
ies in Mathematics, 64, 293–316.
Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2005). Psychological testing and as-
sessment: An introduction to tests and measurement. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Cooper, H., & Reach, K. (2004). What is a meta-analysis and how do we
know we can trust it? In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of
evidence in reading research (pp. 103–126). Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing Co.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007).
Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York:
The Guilford Press.
∗
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),
84–94.
Gallistel, C. R., & Gelman, R. (1992). Preverbal and verbal counting and
computation. Cognition, 44(1–2), 43–74.
Geary, D. C., Howard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J., Nugent, L., & Numtee,
C. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in
children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development,
78(4), 1343–1359.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (1998). Real world use of scientific concepts:
Integrating situated cognition with explicit instruction. Exceptional
Children, 65(1), 23–35.
Gersten, R., Baker, S., & Lloyd, J. W. (2000). Designing high-quality re-
search in special education: Group experimental design. Journal of
Special Education, 34(1), 2–18.
Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R.,
et al. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response
to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools. NCEE 2009–
4060. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department
of Education.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C.,
& Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimen-
tal and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional
∗
Children, 71(2), 149–164.
Gersten, R., & Kelly, B. (1992). Coaching secondary special education
teachers in implementation of an innovative videodisc mathematics
curriculum. Remedial & Special Education, 13(4), 40–51.
Ginsburg-Block, M. D., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (1998). An evaluation of the
relative effectiveness of NCTM standards-based interventions for low-
achieving urban elementary students. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 90(3), 560–569.
Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E., & Bocian,
K. M. (2000). Treatment integrity in learning disabilities intervention
research: Do we really know how treatments are implemented? Learn-
ing Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(4), 198–205.
Grobecker, B. (1999). The evolution of proportional structures in children
with and without learning differences. Learning Disability Quarterly,
22(3), 191–211.
Hecht, S. A., Close, L., & Santisi, M. (2003). Sources of individual dif-
ferences in fraction skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
86(4), 277–302.
Hiebert, J. (1985). Children’s knowledge of common and decimal fractions.
Education and Urban Society, 17(4), 427–437.
Hiebert, J., & Tonnessen, L. H. (1978). Development of the fraction concept
in two physical contexts: An exploratory investigation. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 9(5), 374–378.
Hiebert, J., Wearne, D., & Taber, S. (1991). Fourth graders’ gradual con-
struction of decimal fractions during instruction using different physi-
cal representations. The Elementary School Journal, 91(4), 321–341.
Horner, R., Carr, E., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005).
The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice
in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.
Hudson, P. J., Miller, S. P., & Butler, D. L. (2006). Adapting and merg-
ing explicit instruction within reform based mathematics classrooms.
∗
American Secondary Education, 35(1), 19–32.
Jordan, L., Miller, 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.
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),
∗
123–136.
Kelly, B., Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1990). Student error patterns as
a function of curriculum design: Teaching fractions to remedial high
school students and high school students with learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(1), 23–29.
Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research.
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Kim, A.-H., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers
and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning
disabilities: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
37(2), 105–118.
Kolligian Jr., J., & Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Intelligence, information process-
ing, and specific learning disabilities: A triarchic synthesis. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 20(1), 8–17.
Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2003). Mathematical interventions
for children with special education needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial
& Special Education, 24(2), 97–114.
Kunsch, C. A., Jitendra, A. K., & Sood, S. (2007). The effects of peer-
mediated instruction in mathematics for students with learning prob-
lems: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
22(1), 1–12.
Maccini, P., & Hughes, C. A. (1997). Mathematics interventions for ado-
lescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 12(3), 168–176.
Maccini, P., Mulcahy, C. A., & Wilson, M. G. (2007). A follow-up of math-
ematics interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 58–74.
Mack, N. K. (1990). Learning fractions with understanding: Building on
informal knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
21(1), 16–32.
Mack, N. K. (1995). Confounding whole-number and fraction concepts
when building on informal knowledge. Journal for Research in Math-
ematics Education, 26(5), 422–441.
Manalo, E., Bunnell, J. K., & Stillman, J. A. (2000). The use of process
mnemonics in teaching students with mathematics learning disabilities.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(2), 137–156.
McLeod, T. M., & Armstrong, S. W. (1982). Learning disabilities in
mathematics: Skill deficits and remedial approaches at the inter-
mediate and secondary level. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5,
305–310.
Miller, S. P., Butler, D. L., & Lee, K.-h. (1998). Validated practices for
teaching mathematics to students with learning disabilities: A review
of literature. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31(1), 1–24.
Miller, S. P., & Hudson, P. J. (2007). Using evidence-based practices to build
mathematics competence related to conceptual, procedural, and declar-
ative knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1),
47–57.
Mix, K. S., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (1999). Early fraction calcula-
tion ability. Developmental Psychology, 33(5), 164–174.
Montague, M. (2007). Self-regulation and mathematics instruction. Learn-
ing Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 75–83.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and eval-
uation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and stan-
dards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal
points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for
coherence. Virginia: Reston.
Ni, Y. (2001). Semantic domains of rational numbers and the acquisition
of fraction equivalence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26,
400–417.
Ni, Y., & Zhou, Y.-D. (2005). Teaching and learning fraction and rational
LEARNING DISABILITIES PRACTICE 119
numbers: The origins and implications of whole number bias. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 40(1), 27–52.
Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. D., Thompson, B.,
& Harris, K. (2005). Quality indicators for research in special educa-
tion and guidelines for evidence-based practices: Executive summary.
Division for Research: Council for Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148.
Owen, R. L., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Mathematical problem-solving strategy
instruction for third-grade students with learning disabilities. Remedial
& Special Education, 23(5), 268–278.
Pitkethly, A., & Hunting, R. (1996). A review of recent research in the area
of initial fraction concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30(1),
5–38.
Pothier, Y., & Sawada, D. (1983). Partitioning: The emergence of rational
number ideas in young children. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 14(5), 307–317.
Pressley, M., & Harris, K. R. (1994). Increasing the quality of educational
intervention research. Educational Psychology Review, 6(3), 191–208.
Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2008). Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator
neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learning and Individual
Differences, 18(1), 89–107.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing con-
ceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative
process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346–362.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger, K. (2009). Iterating between lessons on
concepts and procedures can improve mathematics knowledge. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 483–500.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Casto, G. (1987). The quantitative
synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Re-
medial & Special Education, 8(2), 24–33.
Subramaniam, J., & Verma, B. (2009, January). Introducing fractions using
share and measure interpretations: A report from classroom trials.
Paper presented at the epiSTEME 3, Mumbai.
Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention research
on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment
outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 277–321.
Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2000). A meta-analysis of single-subject-
design intervention research for students with learning disabilities.
∗
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 114–136.
Test, D. W., & Ellis, M. F. (2005). The effects of LAP fractions on addi-
tion and subtraction of fractions with students with mild disabilities.
Education & Treatment of Children, 28(1), 11–24.
The National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Reports of the task
groups and Subcommittees. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Ed-
ucation
Vaughn, S., Kim, A-H., Sloan, C., Hughes, M., Elbaum, B., & Sridhar, D.
(2003). Social skills interventions for young children with disabilities:
A synthesis of group design studies. Remedial and Special Education,
24, 2–15.
Wagner, M. M., & Blackorby, J. (1996). Transition from high school to
work or college: How special education students fare. The Future of
Children, 6(1), 103–120.
Woodward, J., Baxter, J., & Robinson, R. (1999). Rules and reasons: Dec-
imal instruction for academically low achieving students. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(1), 15–24.
Woodward, J., & Montague, M. (2002). Meeting the challenge of mathe-
matics reform for students with learning disabilities. The Journal of
Special Education, 36(2), 89–101.
Wu, H. (2008). Fractions, decimals, and rational numbers. Retrieved Au-
gust 20, 2008, from University of California, Berkeley, Department of
Mathematics Web site: http://math.berkeley.edu/∼wu/
Xin, Y. P., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). The effects of instruction in solving
mathematical word problems for students with learning problems: A
meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 207–225.
Copyright of Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Blackwell Publishing Limited) is the property of
Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

View publication stats