Childhood Education

ISSN: 0009-4056 (Print) 2162-0725 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uced20

Focus on Inclusive Education: Math Literacy

Strategies for Students With Learning Difficulties

Sharlene A. Kiuhara & Bradley S. Witzel

To cite this article: Sharlene A. Kiuhara & Bradley S. Witzel (2014) Focus on Inclusive Education:
Math Literacy Strategies for Students With Learning Difficulties, Childhood Education, 90:3,
234-238, DOI: 10.1080/00094056.2014.912067

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2014.912067

Published online: 15 Apr 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2434

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uced20
Focus on Inclusive Education
Math Literacy Strategies for Students
With Learning Difficulties
Sharlene A. Kiuhara is Assistant Professor, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Bradley S. Witzel is Associate Professor, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, South Carolina.
I n the United States, students
with and without disabilities
are performing below grade-
level standards in math and
demonstrate low mathematics
literacy. The majority of 4th-
and 8th-grade students, with
and without disabilities, are
performing at or below basic
levels in math (National Center
for Education Statistics [NCES],
2013); approximately 26% of
15-year-old students in the United
States failed to demonstrate
math reasoning and scored at the
lowest level on the Program for
International Student Assessment
(PISA) 2013. PISA assesses the
degree to which 15-year-old
students “can understand, use,
and reflect on mathematics for
a variety of real-life problems
and settings that they may not
encounter in the classroom”
(Kelly et al., 2013, p. 1). Many
students in general are not able
to engage in math reasoning,
and this hinders their ability
to elaborate and reconstruct
problems, look for inconsistencies
in proposed solutions, make
234 \ Childhood Education
by Sharlene A. Kiuhara and Bradley S. Witzel
modifications to their approach,
apply their current understanding
in novel contexts, and reflect on
their processes (Kelly et al., 2013;
Resnick, 1987).
Being literate in mathematics
involves more than manipulating
mathematical symbols and
following mathematical rules
to solve equations (Ojose,
2011; Resnick, 1987; Steen,
2009). Mathematics literacy
encompasses a range of
competencies and functions, from
solving problems found in daily
life (e.g., paying bills, following
a bus schedule, or analyzing
election results) to solving
trigonometry and calculus
problems (e.g., calculating the
trajectory of a rocket).
Despite the low performance
of students in mathematics,
teachers receive little to no
professional development on
how to provide evidence-based
instruction in mathematics
instruction and intervention
(National Mathematics Advisory
Panel [NMAP], 2008). Therefore,
it becomes important to apply
Bradley S. Witzel, Editor
research-supported instructional
approaches that facilitate
contextual learning of both
mathematical content and math
reasoning as states implement
new and updated standards,
such as the Common Core State
Standards for Mathematics
(CCSSM, 2010).
Reconciling Rigorous
Standards for Students
Who Struggle With Math
With the implementation of the
CCSSM (2010), a new challenge
emerges for teachers of students
with disabilities. One of the
most marked changes is the
emphasis on paired mathematics
procedures and reasoning. Not
only are students expected
to learn the content and the
procedures for calculating an
answer, they also must explain
their mathematical reasoning
during problem-solving
(CCSSM, 2010). To help guide
teachers, the CCSSM provides
eight math practice standards
for developing students’
approach to reasoning through
their problem-solving process
(CCSSM, p. 8):
1. Make sense of problems and
persevere in solving them
2. Reason abstractly and
quantitatively
3. Construct viable arguments and
critique the reasoning of others
4. Model with mathematics
5. Use appropriate tools
strategically
6. Attend to precision
7. Look for and make use of
structure
8. Look for and express regularity
in repeated reasoning.
These practices build students’
mathematics literacy, providing
them with a foundational
knowledge base from which
they can synthesize novel
information, use language to
articulate their math reasoning
processes, and apply these
higher-level skills when
solving real-world problems
(NMAP, 2008). The challenge
is how to increase mathematics
literacy and reasoning skills for
students who struggle to master
foundational math concepts, such
as numeracy, or who demonstrate
inconsistencies with their basic
arithmetic skills.
Characteristics of Students
Who Struggle With Math
Children and adolescents who
have high incidence disabilities
and who struggle with math
exhibit cognitive and/or
behavioral characteristics that
affect their ability to acquire
basic math facts or to solve
more complex mathematical
problems involving multiple
steps and skills (Jitendra
& Star, 2011; Montague &
Jitendra, 2012). Research has
shown these students also
exhibit difficulty with reading,
have limited background and
vocabulary knowledge, and
exhibit challenges with working
memory and processing speed
(Gersten, Beckmann, et al., 2009;
Jitendra & Star, 2011; Montague
& Jitendra, 2012), making it
especially challenging for them
to apply the mathematical
reasoning necessary to solve
word problems. That is, students
must be able to parse the word
problem in meaningful chunks
while converting the information
to formal mathematical notations
(Montague & Jitendra, 2012).
They also have difficulty with
planning, self-regulating their
learning process, and generating
and evaluating their ideas (Fuchs
& Fuchs, 2003, 2005; Gersten,
Beckmann, et al., 2009; Graham
& Harris, 2003; Jitendra & Star,
2011; Montague & Jitendra, 2012).
These difficulties hinder students’
ability to make sense of problems,
persevere in solving them, and
know when to apply appropriate
strategies to solve problems.
What the Research Shows
Two recent syntheses of math
intervention studies clarify
specific instructional components
for improving math outcomes
for students with disabilities
(Gersten, Beckmann, et al.,

Components for Curriculum Design to Promote Math Processes and Reasoning

Math Content Pedagogical Practice

• Grades K-5: Whole Numbers
• Grades 4-8: Rational Numbers
• Word problems based on common underlying
structures
• 10 minutes in each session to build fluent
retrieval of basic math facts
• Explicit and systematic instruction using models of
proficient problem solving, verbalization of thought
processes, guided practice, corrective feedback, and
frequent cumulative review
• Visual representations of mathematical ideas
• Progress monitoring of students
• Motivational strategies
• Heuristics to organize information and provide op-
portunites for discussion and self-reflection
• Sequential patterns (e.g., concrete-representational-
abstract; easy to hard)
• Peer-assisted instruction

Figure 1
This figure summarizes the recommendations of content and pedagogical practices presented in
Gersten, Beckmann, et al. (2009) and Gersten, Chard, et al. (2009).

May/June 2014 / 235

2009; Gersten, Chard, et al.,
2009) (see Figure 1). Gersten,
Beckmann, and colleagues (2009)
provided a summary of math
intervention research and eight
recommendations for improving
mathematics learning. One of the
more intriguing recommendations
directly linked to mathematics
literacy was teaching word
problem approaches based on
common underlying structures.
They recommended explicitly
teaching problem solving based
on the type of problem, such as
a problem that shows a change
in number (change problem) or a
problem comparing two amounts
(compare problem). Students learn
how to analyze the problem type
and then construct a visual to
help reason through the problem.
Consider the following problem:
Caroline received 4 stars for her work in
class. Laura received 7 stars for her work.
How many more did Laura receive?
The student would identify this
as a compare problem and draw
a diagram like the one in Figure
2. The student then must decide
how to approach the problem.
Either the student will choose
to subtract 4 from 7 or answer
4 plus what number equals 7.
Using the underlying structure of
the problem reveals the problem
type, and sets up the reasoning
4 How many more?
Visual to reason through math problem.
236 \ Childhood Education
behind the computation needed
to answer the question.
Gersten, Chark, and colleagues
(2009) conducted a meta-analysis
of 42 intervention studies and
identified 15 instructional
components that had an effect on
the mathematics performance of
students with disabilities. Of the
15 components, six components
would have the potential to help
develop the math reasoning skills
of students who struggle with
math: explicit instruction, student
verbalization of their reasoning,
visual representations to solve
word problems, use of heuristics,
range and sequence of examples,
and peer-assisted learning.
The pedagogical component
of explicit instruction was a
common thread among the
studies reviewed. The authors
also indicated that using visual
representations while solving
problems was more effective
when combined with other
instructional components. In
terms of curriculum design,
the teacher can have a positive
impact when sequencing
instruction to effectively transfer
to new skills. The component
of providing opportunities for
students to verbalize their math
reasoning and learning processes
was also effective, whether
verbalizing generic problem-
solving strategies or specific/
Figure 2
explicit strategies. The authors
note that verbalization may
help students learn skills and
apply strategies that promote
self-regulation of learning and
behavior, such as goal setting
and addressing impulse control.
Finally, the authors suggest the
use of heuristics (e.g., using
organizational frameworks or
underlying structures for solving
problems and peer-assisted math
instruction), which allow students
to engage in the discourse of
mathematics.
Two Instructional
Approaches for Promoting
Math Reasoning
Based on the meta-analytic
findings (see Gersten, Beckmann,
et al., 2009; Gersten, Chard,
et al., 2009), two instructional
approaches are highlighted here
that have the potential to promote
math reasoning and that include
several instructional components
presented above that address
math content and pedagogical
practices. Figure 3 presents key
features of schema instruction
and instructional components
of Self-Regulated Strategy
Development (SRSD).
Underlying Structures of Word
Problems. Schema instruction
teaches students to identify the
semantic structure of a word
problem (e.g., change schema,
group schema, compare schema,
restate schema, or vary schema),
and to analyze the mathematical
relationships involved to solve
the problem (Jitendra & Star,
2011). The following is an
example of group schema whereby
a number of smaller groups
combine to form a larger group:
A pack of paper costs $2. A new
notebook costs $4. How much would
it cost to buy the paper and notebook
together?
Powell (2011) reviewed math
intervention studies that used
underlying structures of word
problems and further classified
such instruction into two types:
schema-based instruction
and schema-broadening
instruction. Schema-based
instruction engages the student
in the process of identifying the
problem schema underlying
a given word problem. It uses
the schema as a tool, helping
the student to elaborate on
and translate the information
from the word problem into a
semantic representation, to plan
ways to represent the problem
in mathematical notation, and
to solve the problem (Montague
& Jitendra, 2012). Schema-
broadening instruction focuses
students’ attention on features
of the word problem that are
novel or unfamiliar, such as an
additional question, irrelevant
information, new vocabulary, a
different format, or information
presented visually as pictures or
graphs (Powell, 2011).
SRSD. A goal of SRSD
instruction is to assist students
in mastering the higher-level
cognitive processes involved in
learning a target strategy, as well
as the self-regulation components
for using the strategy effectively.
Through six stages of instruction,
teachers promote generalization
and maintenance of the target
strategy and increase students’
self-efficacy during the learning
process (Graham & Harris,
2003; Harris, Graham, Mason,
& Friedlander, 2008). These
complex cognitive processes
also apply when tackling the
meaning of a passage or solving
a math problem. Although the
majority of SRSD studies have
examined the effects on literacy,
Case, Harris, and Graham (1992)
developed a word-problem

Instructional Approaches for Promoting Math Reasoning

Schema Instruction

F=Find the problem type

O=Organize the information in the problem using the diagram
P=Plan to solve the problem
S=Solve the problem

Self-Regulated Strategy
Development (SRSD):
Six Stages of Instruction
Stage 1: Develop background knowledge
Stage 2: Teacher and students talk about current performance, the purpose and benefits
of target strategies
Stage 3: Model it using think-alouds
Stage 4: Memorize it
Stage 5: Students practice using the strategies with faded support
Stage 6: Independent performance

Figure 3
From Montague and Jitendra (2012) and Graham and Harris (2003).

May/June 2014 / 237

strategy using SRSD in which the
strategy was explicitly taught,
students were viewed as active
collaborators during instruction
and engaged in interactive
discussions, and instruction was
differentiated to meet the needs
of students.
Future Directions
Further investigations are needed
to 1) contribute to our theoretical
understandings of how students
learn math, 2) identify best prac-
tices for students to engage in
articulating their math reasoning
processes, and 3) ensure our stu-
dents demonstrate mathematics
literacy in contexts relevant to
their learning and transition plan-
ning needs. These instructional
practices can potentially improve
the mathematics literacy perfor-
mance of students who struggle
with math.
References
Case, L. P., Harris, K. R., &
Graham, S. (1992). Improving
the mathematical problem-
solving skills of students
with learning disabilities:
Self-regulated strategy
development. The Journal of
Special Education, 26, 1-19.
Common Core State Standards for
Mathematics. (2010). Retrieved
January 1, 2014, from www.
corestandards.org
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2003).
Enhancing the mathematical
problem solving of students
with mathematics disabilities.
In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris,
& S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook
of learning disabilities (pp. 306-
322). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005).
Enhancing mathematical
problem solving for students
with disabilities. The Journal of
Special Education, 39, 45-57.
Gersten, R., Beckmann, S.,
238 \ Childhood Education
Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh,
L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B.
(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.
Retrieved from http://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
publications/ practiceguides/.
Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi,
M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., &
Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics
instruction for students with
learning disabilities: A meta-
analysis of instructional
components. Review of
Educational Research, 79, 1202-
1242.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R.
(2003). Students with learning
disabilities and the process of
writing: A meta-analysis of
SRSD studies. In H. L. Swan-
son, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham
(Eds.), Handbook of learning
disabilities (pp. 323-344). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason,
L., & Friedlander, B. (2008).
Powerful writing strategies for
all students. Baltimore, MD:
Brookes Publishing.
Jitendra, A., & Star, J. (2011).
Meeting the needs of students
with learning disabilities in
inclusive mathematics class-
rooms: The role of schema-
based instruction on mathemat-
ical problem-solving. Theory
Into Practice, 50, 12-19.
Kelly, D., Xie, H., Nord, C. W.,
Jenkins, F., Chan, J. Y., &
Kastberg, D. (2013). Performance
of U.S. 15-year-old students in
mathematics, science, and reading
literacy in an international
context: First look at PISA 2012
(NCES 2014-024). Washington,
DC: National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/
pubsearch
Montague, M., & Jitendra, A.
K. (2012). Research-based
mathematics instruction
for students with learning
disabilities. In H. Forgasz & F.
Rivera (Eds.), Towards equity in
mathematics education, advances
in mathematics education (pp.
481-502). Berlin, Germany:
Springer-Verlag.
National Center for Education
Statistics. (2013). The nation’s
report card: A first look. 2013
mathematics and reading (NCES
2014-451). Washington,
DC: Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from
http://nationsreportcard.gov
National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics. (2000).
Principles and standards for
school mathematics. Reston, VA:
Author.
National Mathematics Advisory
Panel. (2008). Foundations for
success: The final report of the
National Mathematics Advisory
Panel. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
Retrieved from www2.
ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/
mathpanel/report/final-report.
pdf
Ojose, B. (2011). Mathematics
literacy: Are we able to put
the mathematics we learn
into everyday use? Journal of
Mathematics Education, 4, 89-100.
Powell, S. (2011). Solving word
problems using schemas:
A review of the literature.
Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 26, 94-108.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education
and learning to think.
Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Steen, L. A. (2009). Every teacher
is a teacher of mathematics.
Principal Leadership, 7, 16-20.