Focus on Autism and Other

Schema-Based Strategy Instruction

Developmental Disabilities
26(2) 87­–95
© 2011 Hammill Institute on Disabilities

in Mathematics and the Word Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1088357611405039
Problem-Solving Performance http://focus.sagepub.com

of a Student With Autism

Sarah B. Rockwell1, Cynthia C. Griffin1, and Hazel A. Jones1

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to provide preliminary results on the use of schema-based strategy instruction to teach addition
and subtraction word problem solving to a fourth grade student with autism.The student was taught to use schematic diagrams
to solve three types of addition and subtraction word problems. A multiple probes across behaviors single-case design was
used, with solving each of the three problem types treated as a separate behavior. Interpretation of results indicated that the
participant’s ability to solve all types of one-step addition and subtraction word problems improved following instruction.
Improvement also generalized to problems with unknowns in the initial and medial position and was maintained over time.

Keywords
autism, mathematics, problem solving, schema-based instruction

Federal legislation mandates that schools be increasingly
accountable for the academic progress of all students. The
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) requires that
schools demonstrate adequate yearly progress by increasing
student achievement, including the achievement of students
with disabilities, on statewide assessments of reading and
mathematics. Additionally, the Individuals With Disabili-
ties Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) requires that
students with disabilities have access to and make progress
in the general education curriculum and participate in state
and district assessments. Although both NCLB and IDEA
recognize that some students will be unable to participate in
these grade-level assessments, the majority of students with
disabilities must be included.
Within the area of mathematics, the general education cur-
riculum and statewide assessments are increasingly focused
on conceptual understanding and problem solving (Bottge,
2001; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
[NCTM], 2002). However, helping students with disabilities
attain competence in mathematical problem solving has
proven especially challenging. According to Bottge (2001),
students with disabilities advance at a slower rate than their
non-disabled peers, resulting in ever-increasing discrepan-
cies and limited proficiency on tests of mathematics
competence.
The mathematics progress of students with autism is of
particular concern due to the increasing prevalence of
autism in the school-age population (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2009) and to the impact of char-
acteristic features of autism on mathematics performance.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-
IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000), language
impairment is a characteristic feature of autism. Researchers
have found that children with autism perform significantly
lower than typically developing children and language-
ability-matched children on tasks measuring executive
functioning, including planning, organization, switching
cognitive set, and working memory (Hughes, Russell, &
Robbins, 1994; Ozonoff, Pennington, & Rogers, 1991).
Researchers also have shown that both language impair-
ment and executive dysfunction have detrimental impacts
on mathematics functioning (Donlan, 2007; Zentall, 2007).
Language impairment may affect mathematics development
in a variety of areas including number-word sequence, calcula-
tion skills, fact retrieval, and word problem solving (Donlan,
2007). Language impairment likely has an effect on students’
ability to solve word problems because, unlike mathematical
1
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Sarah B Rockwell, University of Florida, P.O. Box 117050,
Gainesville, FL 32611-7050
Email: srockwell@ufl.edu.
88 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 26(2)
tasks that require students to make use of numerical informa-
tion only, mathematical word problems require students to use
both semantic and numerical information to problem solve.
Researchers have shown that students with autism have diffi-
culty making use of semantic information (Frith & Snowling,
1983). It is therefore likely that the additional semantic infor-
mation in word problems may affect the ability of students with
autism to accurately solve these problems.
Executive dysfunction also contributes to mathematics dif-
ficulties. According to Zentall (2007), “attention is a critical
factor in math performance and achievement” (p. 234). Poor
attention leads to alignment errors, procedural calculation
errors, and difficulty learning math facts. Additionally, defi-
cits in sustained attention and working memory contribute to
difficulties with mathematical problem solving and concept
formation. Geary, Hoard, Byrd-Craven, Nugent, and Numtee
(2007) suggest that working memory deficits also may con-
tribute to the use of immature problem-solving strategies and
procedures. In addition, these deficits may lead to difficulties
inhibiting irrelevant information, thus leading to procedural
and problem-solving errors. For instance, students with work-
ing memory deficits may use finger-counting strategies rather
than recalling math facts to solve computational problems. To
solve word problems, these students may use concrete model-
ing rather than demonstrating an understanding of the connec-
tion between semantic structures and operations.
Given that students with autism exhibit language impair-
ment and executive dysfunction, including deficits in atten-
tion control and working memory, these students will likely
manifest difficulties with mathematical problem solving.
Yet mathematical problem solving is a primary goal of
mathematics instruction, a necessary skill for proficiency on
statewide assessments, and a critical process for successful
functioning in an increasingly technological and mathemati-
cally oriented society (NCTM, 2002). According to Browder
and Cooper-Duffy (2003), academic instruction for students
with significant disabilities, such as autism, should focus on
developing skills that address academic standards while also
promoting successful functioning in the community. Therefore,
fostering successful problem-solving performance in mathe-
matics and its applications to everyday life for students with
autism is critical.
Despite the need to identify scientifically based practices
for teaching mathematical problem solving to students with
autism, few researchers have undertaken the task. However, a
substantial body of research has been used to evaluate the effi-
cacy of interventions aimed at improving math problem-solv-
ing performance of students with math difficulties and learning
difficulties. In their meta-analysis, Gersten et al. (2009) reviewed
42 studies designed to improve students’ math performance.
Studies of word problem-solving interventions included
instruction in general problem-solving heuristics, multiple-
strategy instruction, peer-assisted instruction, direct instruc-
tion, and instruction using visual representations. The authors
interpreted the results of the meta-analysis to conclude that
instruction using visual representations resulted in large effect
sizes, particularly when visual representations were paired
with heuristics and direct instruction. Heuristics consist of
generalized problem-solving strategies that provide students
with steps to follow when approaching word problems, such
as shown in the early work of Pólya (1945, 1957).
Schema-based strategy instruction (SBI) is an intervention
that uses visual representations, heuristics, and direct instruc-
tion to teach students to solve word problems. A schema
consists of a mental problem-solution representation that
allows an individual to efficiently solve a class of similar
problems (Gick & Holyoak, 1983). In one of the earliest
studies designed to explore schema development in mathe-
matical problem solving, Carpenter and Moser (1984) found
that as children got older they progressed from concretely
modeling the actions indicated in word problems to using
more complex strategies based on an increased understand-
ing of the underlying schemas for change, combine, and
compare problem types. Change problems involve an initial
quantity that is either increased or reduced by an action to
result in a different ending quantity. Combine problems
involve two or more initial quantities that are combined to
form an ending quantity. Compare problems involve two
initial quantities that are compared to obtain a difference.
Researchers have documented the differentiated effective-
ness of using SBI to improve the additive word problem-
solving performance of students with learning disabilities in
both resource room and inclusive settings (e.g., Jitendra
et al., 2007; Jitendra et al., 1998) and have shown mainte-
nance of the skill across time (Jitendra & Hoff, 1996).
Despite the evident promise of SBI for improving mathe-
matical word problem-solving performance, only one such
study has included individuals with developmental disabili-
ties. Neef, Nelles, Iwata, and Page (2003) evaluated the effec-
tiveness of teaching the precurrent skills of identifying the
initial value, change value, operation, and ending value on
the ability of two males, ages 19 years and 23 years, with
developmental disabilities. The researchers concluded that
teaching adults with developmental disabilities to identify
the component parts of change problems could effectively
improve their ability to solve novel problems of the same
type. The results of this study are promising and can be
used to suggest that students with developmental disabili-
ties, and perhaps students with autism, may benefit from a
behavioral approach to problem-solving instruction that
involves task analysis and discrete training in precurrent skills.
Per requirements in IDEA and NCLB, teachers must use
evidence-based practices to improve the mathematics per-
formance of students with disabilities. SBI includes several
components that might be helpful for teaching students with
autism to solve additive word problems. The use of schematic
diagrams to represent the semantic structure of word prob-
lems may reduce the language demands associated with
Rockwell et al. 89
word problem solving. In addition, Capizzi (2007) suggested
that the formation of problem schema may ease the working
memory demands associated with word problem solving.
Although Neef et al. (2003) included participants with
developmental disabilities, they did not investigate all three
addition and subtraction problem types, include school-aged
children, or include individuals with autism. The current
study extends prior research by examining the efficacy of
using SBI with a fourth-grade student with autism. Research
questions addressed in this study included the following:
(a) Will SBI improve the ability of a student with autism to
solve one-step addition and subtraction word problems with
the unknown in the final position? (b) Will improvement in
problem-solving performance generalize to problems with
unknowns in other locations? (c) Will improvement in prob-
lem-solving performance be maintained over time?
Method
Participant
The study participant, who was given the pseudonym Samantha,
was a 10-year-, 3-month-old female. Samantha was not taking
any medications, was not under any dietary constraints, and was
not participating in any private therapy at the time of this study.
A clinical psychologist diagnosed Samantha with autistic dis-
order in 2006 based on clinical observations and the results of
the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS; Lord,
Rutter, DiLavore, & Risi, 1999). Samantha had nonverbal intel-
lectual abilities in the low average range (SS = 79) as measured
by the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT; Bracken
& McCallum, 1998). Her language abilities, as measured by the
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Fourth Edition
(Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003), were below average (SS = 45
to 58). The evaluation report, which was consistent with teach-
ers’ reports, indicated that Samantha had difficulty following
multistep directions, forming complete grammatically correct
sentences, and using and understanding age-appropriate vocab-
ulary. However, Samantha could follow single-step directions,
use simple sentences and phrases to communicate her wants and
needs, and comprehend information conveyed using simple
sentences and phrases. Her mathematics performance, as mea-
sured by the KeyMath Diagnostic Assessment, Third Edition
(Connolly, 2007), was shown to be in the very low range (SS =
63). Her performance on the Applications cluster, which mea-
sures problem solving, was particularly low (SS = 55).
Samantha’s problem-solving performance was inhibited
because she had difficulty determining which operation to use
when presented with simple addition and subtraction word
problems. According to Samantha’s Individualized Education
Program, she spent the majority of the day in a general education
classroom but received mathematics instruction 4 hours per
week from a special education teacher in a resource class-
room. During reading, an aide was assigned to Samantha’s
Part Part
All
Figure 1. Schematic Diagram for Group Problems
general education classroom, but Samantha did not have her
own aide. She also received occupational therapy for 30 minutes
each week to improve her handwriting. Samantha participated
in grade-level statewide and school district assessments.
According to her parents and teachers, Samantha was a hard
worker who was eager to please and who responded well to
verbal praise.
Setting
This study was conducted over an 8-week period during the
summer between Samantha’s third and fourth grade years.
The first author conducted all instruction during tutoring
sessions that occurred four times per week for a total of
540 minutes of instructional time. Tutoring sessions were
conducted at 9:00 a.m. on Monday through Thursday morn-
ings in the first author’s home in a quiet room designated as
a home office. Tutoring sessions lasted 2 hours, the first 45
minutes of which were devoted to SBI. During the remain-
der of tutoring sessions, Samantha received instruction in
reading, grammar, vocabulary, and expository writing.
Independent Variable
Lesson checklists and teaching scripts were used to ensure
that important instructional components were addressed
during each session. Lesson scripts were modified based on
those used in a previous SBI study (Griffin & Jitendra, 2009).
A sample script and implementation checklist is available
from the first author. Treatment was conducted in three
phases with each phase addressing one of the three problem
types identified by Carpenter and Moser (1984), based on
the sequence established by Christou and Philippou (1999):
first group, then change, and finally compare problem types.
Problem-type definitions. Group problems consist of two
smaller groups, called parts, which are combined to form a
larger group, or all (refer to the group schematic diagram in
Figure 1). Consider the story situation: Jen bought 12 apples
and 15 oranges. Jen bought 27 pieces of fruit. In this prob-
lem the two parts are 12 apples and 15 oranges while the all
is 27 pieces of fruit.
Change problems consist of a beginning amount, change
amount indicated by an action, and an ending amount.
Figure 2 is a schematic diagram for the change problem.
The change amount in the problem can indicate addition or
subtraction. The term “get more” was applied to additive
changes, while the label “get less” was applied to subtractive
90 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 26(2)
Figure 2. Schematic Diagram for Change Problems
changes (Willis & Fuson, 1988). Consider the story situa-
tion: Jen had 12 oranges. She ate 3 of them. Now she has
9 oranges. This is a “get less” situation with the beginning
amount of 12 oranges. The change amount is -3 oranges and
the ending amount is 9 oranges. Now, consider the story
situation: Jen had 12 oranges. She picked 14 more. Now she
has 29 oranges. This is a “get more” situation with the begin-
ning amount of 12 oranges. The change amount is +14 oranges
and the ending amount is 29 oranges.
Compare problems consist of a larger amount, a smaller
amount, and a difference, which results from comparing the
smaller and larger amounts (see Figure 3 for the compare
schematic diagram). Compare problems can be written in two
forms. Consider the story situation: Jen has 22 apples. She has
15 oranges. Jen has 7 more apples than oranges. This story
situation also can be written: Jen has 22 apples. She has 15
oranges. Jen has 7 fewer oranges than apples. In both cases,
22 apples is the larger amount, 15 oranges is the smaller amount,
and 7 is the difference. In one situation this differences refers
to fewer oranges, while in the other it refers to more apples.
Instructional sequence. The SBI intervention procedures
used in this study were based on those used in previous
SBI studies (e.g., Jitendra et al., 2007). As in previous studies,
Samantha was taught a four-step heuristic for problem solving
using the mnemonic RUNS. The steps in RUNS were based
on the FOPS mnemonic that included the following: (1) Find
the problem type, (2) organize the information in the problem
using the diagram, (3) plan to solve the problem, and (4) solve
the problem. The steps in FOPS were shortened to include
simple phrases easier for Samantha to understand and execute.
The steps in RUNS included: (1) Read the problem, (2) use a
diagram, (3) number sentence, and (4) state the answer. These
steps were intended to cue Samantha to read the whole prob-
lem, choose the appropriate diagram to use, draw the chosen
diagram, complete the diagram using numbers from the given
problem, use the diagram to create a number sentence that
results in problem solution, and write the answer with its label.
Unlike in previous SBI studies, instruction in using schematic
diagrams to solve each type of word problem was conducted
separately. This decision was made so that Samantha could
practice using each schematic diagram to mastery before being
introduced to additional diagrams. Instruction in how to solve
group and compare problems consisted of three lessons, while
Larger Amount
Smaller Amount Difference
Figure 3. Schematic Diagram for Compare Problems
instruction in how to solve change problems consisted of four
lessons. As in previous SBI studies, instruction on each type of
word problem was conducted in two parts. The first part used
story situations in which all components of the problem con-
sisted of known quantities in order to facilitate schema induc-
tion. The second part included one unknown quantity for which
the participant solved. This unknown quantity was the all for
group problems, the ending for change problems, and the dif-
ference for compare problems. These unknown positions were
chosen based on research indicating that it is easier for stu-
dents to solve problems with unknowns in the final position of
the diagram than in the initial or medial positions (Willis &
Fuson, 1988).
As in previous SBI studies, direct instruction (Gersten,
Woodward, & Darch, 1986) consisting of teacher modeling,
guided practice, independent practice, and continuous teacher
feedback was used throughout all phases of instruction to
teach Samantha to use schematic diagrams to complete the
RUNS steps. Direct instruction was used to teach Samantha
to recognize the salient features of the three problem types.
Throughout all phases of instruction Samantha was presented
with problems from all three problem types in order to facili-
tate discrimination of when to use the diagrams taught.
Problem sorting activity. Because Samantha experienced
unanticipated difficulty discriminating between the different
problem types, a brief problem sorting activity was added
during the second instructional session on group problems.
This sorting activity was included once during story situa-
tion instruction for each problem type. During this activity,
Samantha was presented with story situations for all three
problem types. She was then asked to sort these problems as
belonging, or not belonging, to the type being taught. Once
sorted, she was asked to explain the reasons for her deci-
sions by describing the presence or absence of the critical
features of the problem type being taught.
Generalization. Following instruction on all problem types,
one lesson was conducted that was focused on generalizing
to problem solving with unknowns in other locations. This
lesson began with a review of the algebraic reasoning
required to solve for an unknown in the initial or medial
position of a number sentence. Instruction in algebraic rea-
soning included a review of the relationship between the
addition and subtraction operations as well as a discussion
Rockwell et al. 91
of which operation would be used to find a larger quantity
and which operation would be used to find a smaller quan-
tity. The remainder of the lesson consisted of guided practice
in solving problems with unknowns in the initial or medial
position. Generalization probes were conducted after this
lesson. A final set of probes with unknowns in the final loca-
tion was administered 6 weeks following the completion
of instruction to assess maintenance of treatment effects
over time. Because positive teacher feedback and corrective
feedback included as part of the direct instruction procedures
were sufficient to reinforce correct responses and eliminate
incorrect responses for Samantha, an additional reinforce-
ment schedule was not included as part of the intervention.
Treatment Integrity. All treatment sessions were video-
taped. A graduate student trained in the instructional proce-
dures of the study viewed one-fourth (i.e., 27%) of the
sessions that included a random sample of all three instruc-
tional phases. The student compared the lesson components
observed in the videotapes to those included in lesson scripts
and checklists. Treatment integrity was calculated by divid-
ing the number of steps observed by the number of steps total.
Treatment integrity was 100% for all lessons assessed. The
graduate student commented that each component of instruc-
tion was easily distinguished in the videotaped lessons.
Dependent Variable
Problem-solving progress was assessed using experimenter-
developed assessment materials. Practice sheets were used
as a formative assessment of student progress during train-
ing phases. Problem-solving probes were used to evaluate
treatment effects.
Practice sheets. During training on each problem type,
Samantha’s progress was assessed using practice problem
sheets. Each practice sheet consisted of two problems of the
type being taught. During story-situation instruction, prac-
tice sheets included two story situations in which all three
quantities were known. During problem-solving instruction,
practice sheets included problem situations in which the
final quantity was unknown. Samantha’s scores on practice
sheets administered at the end of each training session were
used for making decisions about the pace of instruction.
Probes. To evaluate the effectiveness of SBI, problem-
solving probes were administered to Samantha at baseline,
following instruction on each problem type, following
instruction on generalization to unknowns in other locations,
and 6 weeks later to assess maintenance. During probe
phases, no training sessions took place. Instead, one probe
was administered during each regularly scheduled tutoring
session. Problem-solving probes consisted of six-item
experimenter-developed tests. These probes were derived
from the problem-solving probes and tests used in the Jitendra
et al. (1996, 1998, 2007) studies. Each probe presented two
problem situations from each problem type for a total of six
problems. All problem situations involved unknowns in the
final position and information presented entirely in text,
with the exception of generalization probes, which included
unknowns in other positions. On each probe, one change
problem was a “get more” problem and one change problem
was a “get less” problem. Also, one compare problem used
the term “fewer” to compare quantities, while the other used
the term “more” to compare quantities.
Samantha was given the following instructions prior to
beginning each probe: “Here are six problems I want you to
solve by yourself. Remember to use what you have learned
to solve these problems. If you have trouble reading a prob-
lem, let me know and I will help you. Do your best.”
Samantha was given up to 30 minutes to complete each
probe. Each of the six problems was worth a possible three
points. One point was awarded for writing the correct num-
ber sentence to solve the problem. Assuming this number
sentence was correct, additional points were earned for cor-
rectly computing the answer and correctly labeling the
answer with a noun. These scoring procedures are derived
from those used by Jitendra et al. (1996, 1998, 2007) and
Willis and Fuson (1988).
Interobserver Agreement
The first author scored all of the probes. A graduate student
independently scored a sample of 35% of the probes and
36% of the practice sheets. This sample included at least
one probe from each probe phase and at least one practice
sheet from each instructional phase. The graduate student
was blind to the phase from which each probe or practice
sheet was drawn. Agreement was calculated on a point-by-
point basis such that each probe could have a maximum of
18 agreements and each practice sheet could have a maxi-
mum of 6 agreements. The total number of agreements was
divided by the total number of agreements and disagree-
ments and then multiplied by 100% to obtain the percentage
agreement. The average inter-rater agreement on probes
was 97% (range 94% to 100%). The average inter-rater
agreement on practice sheets was 100%.
Design and Analysis
A single-case, multiple probes across behaviors design was
used in this study. A multiple probes design was chosen
because the use of probe sessions rather than continual
assessment of the dependent variable would minimize test
fatigue. In addition, the multiple probes design allows for
the demonstration of experimental control following an
instructional intervention that cannot be easily removed for
a return to baseline (Kennedy, 2005). The ability to solve
each type of problem was treated as a separate behavior for a
92 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 26(2)
total of three demonstrations of experimental control. Data
from probes and practice sheets were graphed following each
training or probe session to facilitate decision making. When
Samantha earned all possible points in three out of four or
three consecutive sessions during training on one type of
problem story, instructional intervention progressed to the next
type of problem, and probe data were collected for follow-up
of the previously mastered problem type. Generalization
phases were begun when stable trend and level were estab-
lished using visual analysis on probes. This required a mini-
mum of three probe sessions. Maintenance probes were
administered 6 weeks after termination of the intervention.
Results
Group Problems
The results of the intervention are documented in Figure 4.
Prior to receiving SBI on group problems, Samantha’s per-
formance on group problems averaged 3.75 points out of a
possible 6 points per probe. Although Samantha was able to
compute a correct numerical answer for these problems, she
appeared to do so by chance. She was observed to apply the
same solution strategy for all problems (i.e., adding the two
given quantities together without taking time to read the
problems). Following SBI, Samantha’s performance improved
to an average of 5.75 points out of a possible 6 and was
maintained at ceiling on subsequent probes. More impor-
tantly, Samantha was observed reading the problems and
using the appropriate diagram to arrive at a solution.
Change Problems
Prior to receiving SBI on group problems, Samantha’s per-
formance on change problems averaged 2 out of a possible
6 points. These two points resulted from Samantha’s ability
to compute a correct numerical answer for the “get more”
problem through application of an indiscriminate solution
strategy. Following instruction on group problems (i.e., first
problem type targeted), Samantha’s performance improved
to an average of 3 out of a possible 6 points due to her
increased use of labeling answers in accordance with the
RUNS steps. Samantha’s performance improved to ceiling
following instruction on solving change problems and was
maintained on subsequent probes. Samantha was observed
using the correct diagrams for change problems and correctly
discriminating “get more” and “get less” problems following
instruction.
Compare Problems
Following instruction on group and change problems, but
prior to instruction on solving compare problems, Samantha’s
performance was at floor on compare problems. Following
instruction on solving compare problems, Samantha’s per-
formance improved to ceiling and was maintained at this
level on subsequent probes. When solving these problems,
Samantha was observed using the correct diagram to facili-
tate problem solving.
Generalization
Samantha’s performance on generalization probes was at
ceiling for group and compare problems, and averaged 5 out
of 6 for change problems. Samantha’s failure to correctly
solve one of the change problems appeared to be due to
incorrect algebraic reasoning as she had correctly com-
pleted the appropriate diagram for this problem.
Maintenance
On maintenance probes, Samantha performed at ceiling
on group and change problems, and averaged 5.67 out of
6 on compare problems. Samantha’s failure to reach ceil-
ing for compare problems on the second maintenance
probe was due to a computational error involving regroup-
ing for subtraction. On all maintenance probes, Samantha
correctly completed the appropriate diagram for each
problem.
Discussion
The results of this study can be interpreted to suggest that
SBI may be an effective way to teach a child with autism
to solve addition and subtraction word problems. The
participant in this study improved in her ability to solve
single-step addition and subtraction word problems with
unknowns in the final location after just 3 weeks of
instruction. For all problem types Samantha was observed
using the appropriate schematic diagram to solve word
problems on post-training, maintenance, and generaliza-
tion probes.
When Samantha made errors on post-training or mainte-
nance probes, these errors were computational in nature.
Because Samantha made only one error on generalization
probes, the nature of this error cannot be determined with
certainty. However, considering Samantha’s performance
during guided practice, it is possible that she had difficulty
determining the correct operation to use when solving change
problems with unknowns in the initial or medial position.
During guided practice, Samantha seemed to rely on the
knowledge that addition should be used to find an unknown
larger quantity while subtraction should be used to find an
unknown smaller quantity. When solving change problems,
Samantha may have been less able to make use of this
knowledge. This error analysis also indicates that following
SBI, Samantha was able to consistently and accurately use
schematic diagrams to facilitate problem solving.
Rockwell et al. 93

Figure 4. Points Earned on Probes and Practice Sheets for Each Problem Type

Samantha’s continued use of schematic diagrams at
maintenance (i.e., 6 weeks following instruction) suggests
that a child with autism who receives SBI can maintain gains
in problem-solving performance over time. Furthermore,
Samantha’s ability to solve problems with unknowns in the
initial or medial position following one day of instruction
suggests that a child with autism who receives SBI may be
able to generalize performance to problems requiring
algebraic reasoning with minimal additional instruction.
Furthermore, Samantha’s classroom teachers provided anec-
dotal evidence of maintenance and generalization, reporting
that schematic diagram use and improved performance on
addition and subtraction word problems generalized to the
school setting. Samantha’s father also observed Samantha’s
use of schematic diagrams when completing addition and
subtraction word problems as part of homework assign-
ments. This evidence of maintenance and generalization is
particularly promising given the challenges of programming
for skill generalization and maintenance among individuals
with developmental disabilities (e.g., Koegel & Rincover,
1977; Stokes & Baer, 1977).
The results of this study hold promise for improving
the addition and subtraction word problem-solving perfor-
mance of children with autism. Findings can be used to
identify ways in which SBI can be modified to meet the
needs of children with autism. It appears that although
Samantha benefited from instruction focused on one type of
word problem, she also benefited from opportunities to
94 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 26(2)
distinguish the different problem types. During the guided
practice component of the instructional phase for group
problems, it became evident that Samantha had difficulty
determining which problems were not group problems. As a
result, a problem-sorting activity was added to the interven-
tion wherein Samantha was required to sort word problems
as group or not group problems. This same activity was
repeated for change and compare problems during the
corresponding instructional phases.
Samantha may have had some difficulty using algebraic
reasoning to solve change problems with the unknown in
the initial or medial position but did not have similar diffi-
culties solving group or compare problems with the unknown
in the initial or medial position. It is possible that Samantha
was better able to solve the group and compare problems
because the schematic diagrams for these problems better
represented the relationships among quantities in the prob-
lems. The change diagram, on the other hand, is a more
abstract representation of the relationships among the com-
ponents in the problem. It may be helpful to modify the
change diagram to better represent the relationships among
the parts of the problem, such as using separate diagrams
for “get more” and “get less” problems, and teaching these
as two different problem types as was done in the Fuson and
Willis (1989) study.
Although we found that SBI may be useful for teaching
addition and subtraction word problem solving to a student
with autism, there are several limitations to this study. First,
the inclusion of only one participant limits the generaliz-
ability of the findings. Only tentative conclusions can be
drawn regarding generalization to participants with charac-
teristics similar to Samantha’s, and no conclusions can be
drawn regarding generalization to participants with dissimi-
lar characteristics such as comorbid intellectual disability.
In addition, although generalization across problem types
was minimal, the use of a multiple probes across behaviors
design may not be optimal, as solving the three types of
word problems included in this study could be viewed as
related behaviors. Furthermore, because only single-step
addition and subtraction word problems were included in
this study, only a subset of skills needed for successful
mathematical word problem solving was addressed. Finally,
SBI was conducted in a one-to-one setting by a researcher
familiar with the intervention. Therefore, it is unclear
whether teachers in typical educational contexts could suc-
cessfully implement SBI with students with autism without
some professional development.
Future research designed to replicate and expand this
study is necessary to improve confidence in SBI in mathe-
matics with children with autism. To enhance internal valid-
ity, future researchers may use a multiple probes across
participants design in order to control for transfer of skills
from one problem type to another. To contribute to external
validity, this study needs to be replicated with more
participants to ensure that other children with autism respond
similarly to the intervention. Once the results have been veri-
fied through replication, teachers should be trained to con-
duct the SBI with small groups of students with autism to
ensure that teachers can successfully implement the inter-
vention with fidelity in typical educational contexts.
Additional studies also may be designed to teach children
with autism to solve multiplicative word problems, multi-
step word problems, and word problems that include charts
and graphs beyond the text. Overall, SBI holds promise for
improving the mathematics learning of students with autism;
further research may help to refine our understanding of
effective mathematics problem-solving instruction for stu-
dents with autism.
Acknowledgments
A version of this article was presented at the 2009 annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association in San Diego,
California. The authors are grateful to Samantha and her parents.
Without their support, this study would not have been possible.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington,
DC: Author.
Bottge, B. A. (2001). Reconceptualizing mathematics problem
solving for low-achieving students. Remedial and Special
Education, 22, 102–112.
Bracken, B. A., & McCallum, R. S. (1998). The Universal Nonverbal
Intelligence Test. Chicago, IL: Riverside.
Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based prac-
tices for students with severe disabilities and the requirement
for accountability in “No Child Left Behind.” The Journal of
Special Education, 37, 157–163.
Capizzi, A. M. (2007). Mental efficiency as a measure of
schema formation: An investigation in elementary math
problem solving (Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt Univer-
sity, 2006). Retrieved January 20, 2009, from ProQuest
Dissertation & Thesis Full Text database (Publication No.
AAT 3237020).
Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition
and subtraction concepts in grades one through three. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 179–202.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Prevalence
of autism spectrum disorders—Autism and developmen-
tal disabilities monitoring network, 2006. Morbidity and
Rockwell et al. 95
Mortality Weekly Report, 58, 1–24. Retrieved January 27,
2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/
Christou, C., & Philippou, G. (1999). Role of schemas in one-step word
problems. Educational Research and Evaluation, 5, 269–289.
Connolly, A. J. (2007). KeyMath Diagnostic Assessment (3rd ed.).
Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.
Donlan, C. (2007). Mathematical development in children with
specific language impairments. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M.
Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The
nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and
disabilities (pp. 151–172). Baltimore: Brookes.
Frith, U., & Snowling, M. (1983). Reading for meaning and read-
ing for sound in autistic and dyslexic children. British Journal
of Developmental Psychology, 1, 329–342.
Fuson, K. C., & Willis, G. B. (1989). Second graders’ use of sche-
matic drawings in solving addition and subtraction word prob-
lems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 514–520.
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J., Nugent, L., & Numtee,
C. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement def-
icits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child
Development, 78, 1343–1359.
Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P.,
& Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with
learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional compo-
nents. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242.
Gersten, R., Woodward, J., & Darch, C. (1986). Direct instruction:
A research-based approach to curriculum design and teaching.
Exceptional Children, 53, 17–31.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and ana-
logical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.
Griffin, C. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (2009). Word problem solving
instruction in inclusive third grade mathematics classrooms.
Journal of Educational Research, 102, 187–202.
Hughes, C., Russell, J., & Robbins, T. W. (1994). Evidence for exec-
utive dysfunction in autism. Neurosychologia, 32, 477–492.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004,
20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004) (reauthorization of the Indi-
viduals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990).
Jitendra, A. K., Griffin, C. C., Haria, P., Leh, J., Adams, A., &
Kaduvettoor, A. (2007). A comparison of single and multiple
strategy instruction on third grade students’ mathematical
problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99,
115–127.
Jitendra, A. K., Griffin, C. C., McGoey, K., Gardill, M. C., Bhat, P., &
Riley, T. (1998). Effects of mathematic word problem solving
by students at risk or with mild disabilities. Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 91, 345–355.
Jitendra, A. K., & Hoff, K. (1996). The effects of schema-based
instruction of the mathematical word-problem-solving perfor-
mance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learn-
ing Disabilities, 29, 422–431.
Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational
research. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Koegel, R., & Rincover, A. (1977). Research on the difference
between generalization and maintenance in extra-therapy
responding. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 1–12.
Lord, C., Rutter, M., DiLavore, P. C., & Risi, S. (1999). Autism
Diagnostic Observation Schedule-WPS (ADOS-WPS). Los
Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2002). Principles
and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Neef, A. N., Nelles, F. E., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (2003). Analy-
sis of precurrent skills in solving mathematics story problems.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 21–33.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002).
Ozonoff, S., Pennington, B. F., & Rogers, S. J. (1991). Executive
function deficits in high-functioning autistic individuals: Rela-
tionship to theory of mind. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 32, 1081–1105.
Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Pólya, G. (1957). How to solve it. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Semel, E. M., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. (2003). Clinical Evalu-
ation of Language Fundamentals, Fourth Edition (CELF-4).
San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of gen-
eralization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.
Willis, G. B., & Fuson, K. C. (1988). Teaching children to use
schematic drawings to solve addition and subtraction word
problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 192–201.
Zentall, S. S. (2007). Math performance of students with ADHD:
Cognitive and behavioral contributors and interventions. In
D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so
hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical
learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 219–244). Baltimore:
Brookes.
About the Authors
Sarah B. Rockwell, MEd, is a doctoral candidate in special
education at the University of Florida. Her current interests
include mathematics and reading instruction for students with
autism and teacher preparation.
Cynthia C. Griffin, PhD, is a professor of special education at the
University of Florida. Her current interests include teacher profes-
sional development in mathematics and mathematics interven-
tions in inclusive elementary classrooms.
Hazel A. Jones, PhD, is an associate professor of special education
in the Early Childhood Studies Concentration at the University of
Florida. Her current interests include autism, language and literacy
development, and professional development of in-service teachers.