Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(1), 34–44


C 2016 The Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children

DOI: 10.1111/ldrp.12093

Evidence-Based Practices: Applications of Concrete Representational Abstract

Framework across Math Concepts for Students with Mathematics Disabilities
Jugnu Agrawal
George Mason University
Lisa L. Morin
Old Dominion University

Students with mathematics disabilities (MD) experience difficulties with both conceptual
and procedural knowledge of different math concepts across grade levels. Research shows
that concrete representational abstract framework of instruction helps to bridge this gap for
students with MD. In this article, we provide an overview of this strategy embedded within
the explicit instruction framework. We highlight effective practices for each component of the
framework across different mathematical strands. Implications for practice are also discussed
and a detailed case study is provided.

Mathematics disability (MD) is a relatively nascent field of
research (Watson & Gable, 2013). Estimates for the preva-
lence of MD vary widely, from 3 to 9 percent of the entire
school-age population (Fuchs et al., 2010; Swanson, 2012).
Although researchers have agreed on many commonalities
of the characteristics of MD, they have also found that MD
is highly complex with many factors. These factors include
age, grade level, math content, and tasks, along with read-
ing disability comorbidity. Some researchers have warned
that MD should not be considered a “homogenous disorder”
(Chong & Siegel, 2008, p. 314) because students deemed to
have MD may have very different cognitive and skill deficits.
This particularly impacts students with MD in math word
problem solving, a multifaceted task that requires simulta-
neously decoding information presented linguistically and
applying math concepts, creating representations, and carry-
ing out procedural mathematical operations (Zheng, Flynn,
& Swanson, 2013). While researchers differ in their use of the
terms MD and learning disability (LD), for the purpose of this
article, mathematics skills deficits will be referred to as MD.
The recommendations of the National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000) specify that students should
have an opportunity to develop understanding of mathemati-
cal concepts and procedures by engaging in meaningful math
instruction. Common Core’s Standards for Mathematical
Practice (National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010)
highlight process standards that give priority to math rea-
soning and making connections. The findings of a review of
math interventions for low-achieving students indicate that
instruction for students with disabilities focuses on teaching
computational skills and procedures rather than conceptual
Requests for reprints should be sent to Lisa L. Morin, Old Dominion
University. Electronic inquiries should be sent to lmorin@odu.edu
knowledge (Bottge, 2001). Additionally, the achievement gap
for math between typically developing students and students
with disabilities continues to increase because students with
disabilities progress at a much slower rate as compared to
their typically developing peers (Bottge, 2001; Cawley &
Miller, 1989).
Conceptual knowledge is developing a deeper under-
standing of the mathematical concepts by linking new
phenomenon to previously existing phenomenon and under-
standing the relationships and patterns among these different
pieces of information (Miller & Hudson, 2007). For example,
the student understands that multiplication and division have
an inverse relationship. Therefore, he/she uses this knowl-
edge to check the answer to a multiplication problem by
dividing the product with one of the multipliers. Concep-
tual knowledge also develops when students connect a newly
learned math concept to a previously learned and stored
concept. For example, the student understands place value
of whole numbers but when he/she learns decimals, he/she
connects the new math concept with the previously learned
math concept of place value (Hattikudur, 2011; Kridler, 2012;
Miller & Hudson, 2007; Mulcahy & Krezmien, 2009).
Miller and Hudson (2007) define “procedural knowledge
as the ability to solve a mathematical task” (p. 50). It is
also defined as the ability to follow step-by-step proce-
dures to solve a math problem (Bottge, 2001; Carnine, 1997;
Goldman, Hasselbring, & The Cognition and Technology
Group at Vanderbilt, 1997). Procedural knowledge can be
used for solving problems ranging from simple addition and
subtraction to complex word problems. The development of
procedural knowledge has been researched extensively for
students with MD (Hattikudur, 2011; Kridler, 2012; Miller
& Hudson, 2007; Montague, 1992; Mulcahy & Krezmien,
2009).
Both conceptual and procedural knowledge are essen-
tial for improving math achievement of students with MD

(Schneider, Rittle-Johnson, & Star, 2011). An ongoing de-
bate persists regarding which of these two types of knowledge
develops first and which one is more important. Researchers
have come to realize that it is neither procedural nor con-
ceptual knowledge alone; it is an integrated understanding of
both conceptual and procedural knowledge that leads to math
proficiency (Rittle-Johnson, Siegler, & Alibali, 2001). The
concrete representational abstract (CRA) framework helps
to develop a clear link between conceptual and procedural
knowledge.
Vukovic and Siegel (2010) highlighted the importance of
teaching math in a manner that fosters mathematical thinking,
further pointing out that a mathematical education that fo-
cuses on skills and fluency instead of conceptual understand-
ing does not facilitate mathematic literacy. In their literature
review, Zheng et al. (2013) found that successful research had
incorporated the use of explicit and strategic instruction (SI)
to effectively support students with MD. Meyer, Salimpoor,
Wu, Geary, and Menon (2010) recommended that problem
solving skills in students with MD were best supported by vi-
sual representations. The growing body of empirical research
supporting CRA validates its effectiveness as an evidence-
based practice to teach numerous math concepts to students
with MD through explicit and SI that incorporates visual
representations.
CRA
The CRA framework is a process in which the teacher
guides the student through a mathematical concept and its
corresponding computational process through the use of ma-
nipulatives and visual representations that illustrate the con-
cept along with numbers. The concrete and representational
phases are presented alongside the abstract notations. These
serve as scaffolds with the ultimate goal of developing the
student’s ability to comprehend and compute at the abstract
level, which entails training students to decode and use tradi-
tional mathematical notations. Recent research highlighting
the CRA framework emphasizes the need to teach each phase
to mastery (Flores, Hinton, Strozier, & Terry, 2014; Mancl,
Miller, & Kennedy, 2012; Strickland & Maccini, 2013).
The first component of CRA instruction is the use of
hands-on activities with manipulatives. The use of well--
planned instruction using physical manipulatives allows
students to become active participants in knowledge
construction (Stein & Bovalino, 2001). When students use
manipulatives to explore concepts, they are more engaged
and motivated. They can participate in mathematical
discourse, share their thinking, and reflect on their learning.
This leads to increased achievement and deeper understand-
ing of the concepts studied (NCTM, 2008). Furthermore,
manipulatives are effective across grade levels and skill
levels (Gersten, Jordan, & Flojo, 2005). For example, many
researchers (Flores, 2009, 2010; Mancl et al., 2012; Miller &
Kaffar, 2011) made use of Base-10 blocks as manipulatives
to teach place value and regrouping concepts. Base-10
blocks, which represent one-to-one correspondence and can
be used across many mathematical problem types, exemplify
math tasks in a most literal way. Strickland and Maccini
AGRAWAL AND MORIN: APPLICATIONS OF CRA 35
(2010) also suggest the use of manipulatives like counters,
algebra tiles, and geoboards to support students’ conceptual
understanding during the concrete phase.
The second component of the CRA framework involves
the use of visual representations, bridging the gap between
the use of manipulatives, and the unsupported use of ab-
stract mathematical notations. These can take the form of
pictures of the manipulatives, such as pictorial representa-
tions of Base-10 blocks (Mancl et al, 2012; Miller & Kaffar,
2011) or virtual manipulatives (Bouck & Flanagan, 2010;
Satsangi & Bouck, 2014; Suh & Moyer, 2008). Flores (2009,
2010) used tally marks in the representational phase of her in-
tervention, while Bryant, Bryant, Gersten, Scammacca, and
Chavez (2008) used 100s charts and number lines. Other vi-
sual representations can take the form of a graphic organizer.
Graphic organizers, in themselves a research-supported inter-
vention, depict the relationship between facts and concepts,
helping a student to organize, and subsequently solve, math
problems (Strickland & Maccini, 2010, 2013). Research sup-
ports the use of representational over pictorial graphics (van
Garderen & Montague, 2003).
Finally, the main objective of the CRA framework is for
the students to demonstrate the ability to comprehend and
access numbers and symbols without concrete or represen-
tational scaffolds. Strickland and Maccini (2013) asserted
that generalizing the previously mastered conceptual under-
standing from the concrete and representational phases and
applying that to the abstract phase is the most challenging
aspect for students with MD. Since concrete and representa-
tional components of the CRA framework focus on concep-
tual knowledge, it contributes to fluency and automaticity of
procedural knowledge in the abstract phase. Often students
are supported in the transition between the representational
and abstract phases through the application of a cognitive
strategy (e.g., mnemonic or cue) that prompts students to re-
member the steps in the given mathematical process (Mancl
et al., 2012). In addition, the abstract phase also focuses
on fluency in completion of the task (Flores, 2010). Miller,
Stringfellow, Kaffar, Ferreira, and Mancl (2011) suggested
that transition to the abstract phase is facilitated when stu-
dents are exposed to mathematic notation alongside presen-
tations of math problems in concrete and representational
formats.
EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION
Effective delivery of CRA dictates the use of explicit instruc-
tion. The National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP)
asserted that explicit systematic instruction has been found
to specifically support students with learning disabilities in
computation, math word problem solving, and generalizabil-
ity of math problems (NMAP, 2008), facilitating active en-
gagement with math concepts (Strickland & Maccini, 2013).
Explicit systematic instruction requires application of an ad-
vance organizer, teacher modeling, guided practice, problem
solving practice, independent practice, and feedback within
each component of the CRA framework as it is taught (refer
to Table 1). Each of the three components of the frame-
work must be taught explicitly and should include clear
36 LEARNING DISABILITIES RESEARCH

TABLE 1
Components of the Explicit Instruction Framework

Components Description
Advance organizer The teacher links the new lesson with the previously taught lesson by reviewing the objective of the previous
day. The teacher also identifies the objective for that day’s lesson and gives a rationale for learning the skill.
Teacher demonstration The teacher demonstrates the targeted skill while describing aloud the steps.
Guided practice The teacher gives prompts and cues to solve the few problems together using questions and answers.
Independent practice Student independently solves a few problems related to the targeted skill.
Problem-solving practice There are at least two word problems. The student and the teacher solve the first problem together and the
student solves the second one independently.
Feedback The student’s understanding is checked by monitoring his/her work. At this stage the instructional decision is
made to either continue the lesson or go back to step one of the lesson. This is contingent upon the
student’s performance on independent problems.

connections in order to transition between the stages of the
framework (Witzel, Riccomini, & Schneider, 2008). Strick-
land and Maccini (2010) emphasized that explicit instruction
is an evidence-based strategy backed by decades of research
for teaching math concepts to students with LD.
fractions (Butler, Miller, Crehan, Babbit, & Pierce, 2003;
Jordan, Miller, & Mercer, 1999; Witzel & Riccomini, 2009),
algebra (Strickland & Maccini, 2013; Witzel, 2005; Witzel
& Riccomini, 2009), and other math concepts to students
with MD (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs, 2000).

SI
CRA and SI have been used simultaneously to support math
instruction (Hinton, Strozier, & Flores, 2014). Overlapping
with the explicit instruction model in components such as
teacher modeling and feedback, SI differs in that it pro-
vides step-by-step instructions, often through the use of a
mnemonic or similar cues (e.g., cue cards), in decision mak-
ing and solving math problems. As previously noted, this
strategic, procedural support is frequently provided when
students are transitioning to the abstract phase of the CRA
framework. Flores (2009) incorporated a mnemonic strategy
to support students in their transition to the abstract phase;
this mnemonic, DRAW, supported students procedurally in
the abstract phase to (1) discover the sign, (2) read the prob-
lem, (3) answer and check, and (4) write the answer. Miller
and Kaffar (2011), followed by Mancl et al. (2012), incorpo-
rated a mnemonic, RENAME, into lessons involving addition
and subtraction with regrouping at the abstract phase, aiding
students to remember the steps, (1) read the problem, (2)
examine the ones column, (3) note ones in the ones column,
(4) address the tens column, (5) mark tens in the tens column,
(6) examine and note hundreds, and check. The former re-
searchers also provided students with cue cards and a poster
of strategy steps (Miller & Kaffar, 2011).
PROBLEM TYPES
The CRA has been used effectively in research to support stu-
dents with MD across ages, grade levels, and math domains
(Strickland & Maccini, 2010). It has been used successfully
to teach place value (Bryant et al., 2008; Peterson, Mercer,
& O’Shea, 1988), addition and subtraction with regrouping
(Flores, 2010; Flores, Hinton, & Strozier, 2014; Mancl et al.,
2012), multiplication (Flores, Hinton, & Schweck, 2014;
Flores, Hinton, & Strozier, 2014; Morin & Miller, 1998),
Place Value
The concept of place value is the foundation upon which
the command and mastery of other mathematical opera-
tions lie. Through drill and practice, students may memo-
rize the titles of place value columns—ones, tens, hundreds,
thousands—but use of manipulatives and representational
strategies equipped students in various studies to better grasp
the number relationships involved in place value tasks and
better employ computational strategies in a variety of math
tasks and operations (Bryant et al., 2008; Doabler, & Fien,
2013; Hiebert & Wearne, 1992). Individual counters, linking
clips, and unifix cubes can be used and grouped in sets of
tens and hundreds to demonstrate place value concepts in its
most concrete form. The possibilities are endless. In addition,
while a Base-10 block representing the “tens place” (i.e., a
rod) is a single component, the ten divisions that represents
the “ones place” (i.e., units) are typically clearly demarcated
on the rod. The same is true of a flat that is representative of
the “hundreds place”: Students can clearly see the ones and
tens of which the block is constructed. Students may start out
counting individual units on the tens and hundreds blocks,
eventually progressing to more efficiently subitizing, count-
ing by tens and hundreds. As students gain mastery of place
value concepts, they will become less dependent on concrete
materials. Teachers can provide number charts and demon-
strate the use of tally marks and place-value cards as repre-
sentational forms that bridge the gap between the concrete
and purely abstract forms of place value. Number charts, ar-
ranged in rows of ten, provide a visual representation of place
value concepts. Tally marks provide a strategy for students to
construct their own visual representations that will be useful
in performing a variety of math tasks (Flores, 2009; Fuson
et al., 1997). Place-value cards (Cotter, 2000) demonstrate
combining numbers of various place values (e.g., three cards
that represent 300, 60, and 7, can be combined to create the

number 367). Ultimately, students must use the structure of
written numbers to determine information involving place
value that will lead to accurate computation.
Addition and Subtraction
To introduce the concept of addition and subtraction, a
teacher may want to start out with a group of simple coun-
ters that can be used to “add to” or “put together,” or “take
from” or “compare the difference.” Several recent studies
have demonstrated success for higher-level multidigit addi-
tion (Miller & Kaffar, 2011) and subtraction involving re-
grouping (Flores, 2009, 2010; Flores, Hinton, & Strozier,
2014; Mancl et al., 2012) by combining the use of Base-10
blocks with explicit instruction. Researchers reported strong
effect sizes across all grade levels for elementary school stu-
dents with LD.
When Base-10 blocks are placed in columns representing
ones, tens, and hundreds, then students can more easily un-
derstand that two numbers added together that make more
than nine units must be physically moved to the next column.
Conversely, if a larger number cannot be subtracted from a
smaller number, students can physically move the appropriate
block from the neighboring column. Students then transition
to pictorial representations of Base-10 blocks. While picto-
rial representations of Base-10 blocks cannot be physically
manipulated, students can be taught to draw and adjust them
as they solve the addition and subtraction problems. Stu-
dents can also be taught to use bar models, or strip diagrams,
representations that exemplify quantities and their relation-
ships, to support addition and subtraction (Englard, 2010;
Ginsburg, Leinwand, Anstrom, & Pollock, 2005; for an ex-
ample, see Figure 1). When students have met the mastery
criteria of the concept, and the teacher has demonstrated the
steps in addition or subtraction using terms such as “trad-
ing” and “regrouping,” students fully understand the process
conceptually.
Multiplication and Division
If students learn multiplication facts through rote instruc-
tion only, little to no emphasis is placed on developing the
conceptual knowledge of multiplication. In that case, if they
forget certain math facts, they have no way of calculating
or finding the correct answer. On the contrary, students who
understand the concept are more likely to use other strategies
like repeated addition to calculate the correct answer. Sev-
eral researchers have studied the impact of using CRA as an
intervention strategy to teach conceptual knowledge of mul-
tiplication. Morin and Miller (1998) used paper plates with
wooden blocks during the concrete phase and boxes/circles
containing dots/tallies in the representational phase to teach
multiplication (see Figure 2) and related word problems. Flo-
res, Hinton, and Schweck (2014) and Flores, Hinton, and
Strozier (2014) used place value mats with Base-10 blocks
for the concrete phase, long and short tallies and squares for
the representational phase, and a mnemonic tool to remem-
ber the steps for multiplication problems with regrouping for
AGRAWAL AND MORIN: APPLICATIONS OF CRA 37
the abstract phase. Base-10 blocks, paper plates with blocks
or cubes, area models, counters, beads, and other such ma-
nipulatives can be used in the concrete phase to teach mul-
tiplication or division to students with MD. Circular or rect-
angular representations with tally marks or circles/squares
can be used during the representational phase of instruction.
Division is opposite of multiplication, so manipulatives and
representations similar to multiplication can be used to teach
the inverse concept.
Fractions
Sammons (2010) identified fractions as the “hot spot” for
students in upper elementary and middle school. “Hot spots”
are curricular concepts with which students struggle con-
stantly (Sammons, 2010, p. 142). Students have difficulty
with fractions because they fail to connect form and under-
standing. Form is the syntax (e.g., symbols, numerals, and
algorithms) while understanding is the ability to relate math-
ematical ideas to real-world situations (Hiebert, 1985). The
new rules related to fractions conflict with the ideas about
whole numbers. Students seem to lack conceptual and pro-
cedural knowledge of fraction concepts. Misquitta (2011)
noted that direct and explicit instructional strategies are ef-
fective for developing conceptual and procedural knowledge
of fractions for students who are at-risk for MD. Jordan et al.
(1999) noted that fourth grade students instructed with the
concrete to semiconcrete to abstract strategy outperformed
the students instructed with the textbook curriculum on iden-
tification, comparison, equivalence, subtraction, and addition
of fractions.
According to the recommendations of NMAP (2008), con-
ceptual and procedural knowledge of fractions is directly
linked with mastery of fractions. Instruction focused on con-
ceptual knowledge is likely to improve the problem-solving
skills of students. The Rational Number Project (RNP) con-
ducted research on students’ mastery of fraction concepts
(Cramer, Behr, Post, & Lesh, 2009). RNP’s belief is that stu-
dents should learn fractions using manipulatives to develop
concepts. They also emphasize order and equivalence as the
foundation for developing procedural and conceptual knowl-
edge of fraction concepts.
Equivalence of fractions is the key for teaching addition
and subtraction of fractions with unlike denominators (But-
ler et al., 2003). Chips, double-sided counters, and shapes
(e.g., circles, rectangles, and squares) can be used to teach
equivalent fractions in the concrete phase. Butler et al. (2003)
used fraction circles, beans, and folded construction paper to
teach equivalent fractions for the concrete component. It is
important to explicitly teach that fractions can be part of the
same whole (as in shape) or part of a group (as in counters).
Students can use whole circles and colored parts to repre-
sent the unlike fractions. Then they change the parts of the
circle to make equivalent fractions. Once students change
the fractions into equivalent fractions and show that with
manipulatives, they can add or subtract the numerators and
show the answer with a circle and the corresponding colored
parts or with chips (see Figure 3). In the concrete phase,
the metacognitive steps of solving the problem (i.e., teacher
38 LEARNING DISABILITIES RESEARCH

Concrete Level Instruction for Subtraction Representational Level Instruction for

with Regrouping Subtraction with Regrouping
Step 1: For solving 274 — 148, use Base-10 Step 1: For solving 274 — 148 at the
Blocks to show the minuend and subtrahend. representational level, students can be trained to
draw figures that imitate Base-10 blocks.

Step 2: If there is not enough in a place value column to subtract from, a block (or tally mark) is
borrowed from the next column.

Step 3: The borrowed block (or tally mark) is exchanged for the respective number of blocks
representing the place value in which it has been placed. Using one-to-one correspondence, the
now matching units of Base-10 Blocks are compared from the minuend and the subtrahend, with
the remaining number of unmatched blocks forming the difference, or solution.

FIGURE 1 Examples of CRA applications for subtraction with regrouping.

labeling) and using manipulatives to help students concep-
tually understand the problem helps to provide meaning to
the abstract concepts. Once the students have successfully
mastered the fraction concept with manipulatives, visual rep-
resentations through pictures and schematic diagrams can be
introduced for teaching the same concept. The students draw
shapes to show fractions or use schematic diagrams to make
equivalent fractions and then add or subtract the numerators.
Finally, for the abstract phase, the students use fractions with-
out manipulatives or representations to solve the problems.
 AGRAWAL AND MORIN: APPLICATIONS OF CRA 39

Concrete Level Instruction for Representational Level Instruction for

Multiplication Multiplication
Step 1: For solving 14 × 4, use 4 paper plates Step 1: For solving 8 × 13, draw 8 groups
to show the groups

______ ______ ______ ______

______ ______ ______ ______

Step 2: Place 14 objects in each group Step 2: Draw 13 objects in each group

||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| |||||||||||||

||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| |||||||||||||

Step 3: Count the total number of objects in Step 3: Count the total number of objects in the 8
the 4 groups groups

||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| |||||||||||||

||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| |||||||||||||

=
14+14+14+14= 56 13 +13+13+13+13+13+13+13= 104

FIGURE 2 Examples of CRA applications for multiplication.

Algebra them concretely with objects such as string, and/or different-

Algebra requires higher level mathematical problem solving
skills. Due to the abstract nature of the algebraic equations,
these present a problem for students with MD. Algebraic
expressions can range from solving one variable problem
to problems with multiple variables on both sides of the
equation. In a review of interventions for algebra instruction,
Watt, Watkins, and Abbitt (2014) found CRA sequence of
instruction to be an effective strategy for teaching algebra
to students with LD. In order to solve algebraic problems
with multiple variables on both sides of the equal sign, the
students have to be able to reduce expressions, solve single-
variable equations, transform equations on one side of the
equal sign, and across the equal sign (Witzel, Mercer, &
Miller, 2003). Witzel et al. (2003) taught the students to
first manipulate the single variable problems by representing
sized sticks combined with mathematical symbols. Next, the
students drew pictorial representations to show the steps of
the problem, and eventually solved the problem abstractly
using symbols and numbers.
It is important to represent the coefficients and the
variables using different objects. Scheuermann, Deschler,
and Schumaker (2009) used three-dimensional objects like
buttons and different colored unifix cubes to represent
the equations concretely, and two-dimensional drawings
such as tallies, dots, and pictures for the representational
phase. Algebra tiles and their drawings can also be used
for the concrete and representational phases (Maccini &
Hughes, 2000). Strickland and Maccini (2010) recom-
mended using diagrams and charts for the representational
phase to demonstrate the relationships within an algebraic
equation.
40 LEARNING DISABILITIES RESEARCH
Concrete Level Instruction for Fractions
Step 1: 1/9 + 2/3 Show the fractions using double
colored chips.
+ =
Step 2: Do we have equal parts or denominators?
Step 2: Do we have equal parts or denominators?
We don’t have equalparts/denominators.
How can we make equal parts/denominator?
We can make equal parts/denominator by
changing 3 parts into 9 parts.
+ =
Step 3: Change the numerator to match the
Step 3: Change the numerator to match the
denominator.
2/3 6/9
Step 4: Do we have equal parts?
1/9 and 6/9
+ =
Step 5: We add the numerators. The
parts/denominator stays the same.
1/9 + 6/9 = 7/9
+ =
Representational Level Instruction for Fractions
Step 1: 1/2 + 2/8
Show the fractions using circles.
Step 2: Do we have equal parts or denominators?
We don’t have equalparts/denominators.
How can we make equal parts/denominator?
We can make equal parts/denominator by
changing 2 parts into 8 parts.
Step 3: Change the numerator to match the
denominator.
1/2 4/8
Step 4: Do we have equal parts?
4/8 and 2/8
Step 5: We add the numerators. The
parts/denominator stays the same.
4/8 + 2/8 = 6/8
FIGURE 3 Addition of fractions.
Step 1: 1/2 + 2/6
Show the fractions using circles.
+ =
We don’t have equal parts/denominators.
How can we make equal parts/denominator?
We can make equal parts/denominator by
changing 2 parts into 6 parts.
+
= In essence, word problem solving should not be treated as
denominator.
1/2 3/6
+
Step 4: Do we have equal parts?
= across settings. They maintained that math word problems
3/6 and 2/6
+ =
Step 5: We add the numerators. The
parts/denominator stays the same.
3/6 + 2/6 = 5/6
+ =
+ =
+ =
+ =
+ =
Word Problem Solving
Word problem solving is embedded within the explicit in-
struction framework for CRA. The majority of the studies
of CRA and SIM incorporated word problem solving as part
of the instructional framework. In the studies conducted for
teaching addition and subtraction (Miller & Kaffar, 2011),
multiplication (Morin & Miller, 1998), fractions (Butler et al.,
2003), and integers (Maccini & Ruhl, 2000) using the CRA
framework, students demonstrated substantial gains in their
word problem solving skills in addition to solving regular
problems.
a separate entity but rather should be incorporated through-
out the instruction. CRA aids students in understanding the
relevance of math concepts and procedures (Witzel et al.,
2008). However, as the authors pointed out, students with LD
generally experience difficulty applying concepts and skills
included in all phases of the CRA framework can increase
the likelihood that concepts and skills will be generalized
by incorporating relevance and language experiences into in-
struction at each stage. For students struggling with language
involved in word problems, the CRA framework can also pro-
vide support in making the words behind the math problem
more meaningful through the use of concrete and represen-
tational components. For this reason, Witzel et al. (2008)
admonished practitioners against “allowing word problems
to be the dreaded completion of a math lesson” (p. 275).
CRA IN ACTION
William is a friendly third grade student with an easy smile.
His reading is slightly above grade level, and he is particu-
larly interested in science and social studies activities. But
when it is time for math to begin, his smile slowly disap-
pears. He suddenly feels the need to carve his initials into
the wood of his pencil with a pair of scissors he finds in
his desk. William was diagnosed with a math learning dis-
ability in second grade. William is able to follow procedural
steps and solve math problems, but he is unable to explain
the reasoning behind the problem solving. A special edu-
cation teacher or her paraprofessional assistant comes into
the classroom during the inclusive math class. William of-
ten works at a kidney-shaped table in a small-group setting
during math. The special education and general education
teachers typically alternate in the responsibility of teaching
the small group.
Teaching Place Value
Concrete Conceptualization
William’s teachers have been focusing on incorporating the
CRA within the explicit instruction framework in order to
most effectively teach math concepts. Initially, as the teacher
introduces the topic of place value, she provides an overview
of the concept that will be taught in the form of an advance

organizer. Next, the teacher models the instruction. Initially,
she demonstrates one-to-one correspondence using individ-
ual Base-10 blocks that represent “ones.” She actually counts
out 114 individual Base-10 blocks to represent the abstract
number 114. She notes that there are 114 individual blocks.
After pointing out how time consuming it is to count out
114 blocks, she thinks aloud about the possibility of using
the Base-10 blocks that represent tens instead of the individ-
ual ones blocks. She models counting up by tens to 110 and
then adds four ones blocks to the group for a total of 114.
She points out how much easier this is rather than counting
individual blocks. Finally, the teacher presents the idea of
using the Base-10 block that represents 100. She points out
the ones and tens units that are demarcated on the hundreds
block. Now she lines up her number to accurately represent
114: One hundred, one ten, and four ones. She notes that the
different Base-10 blocks represent different place values. She
reviews the entire concept by demonstrating another number
in its abstract form, 156. She discusses why 156 is greater
than 114, and introduces the greater than/less than symbols.
William is then guided through representing a three-digit
number using individual Base-10 blocks, then blocks that
represent tens and ones, and finally blocks representing hun-
dreds, tens, and ones. He is then guided through determining
which of two numbers is larger and how to place the greater
than/less than (>, <) sign between the two numbers. Once
he gains mastery of the concept, the teacher provides in-
dependent practice, providing specific feedback only upon
completion of the practice.
Representational Conceptualization
William’s teacher introduces representational materials that
demonstrate place value alongside the abstract numbers and
symbols immediately after he shows mastery of place value
through the pairing of concrete and abstract formats in order
to better help William understand the connection between
the concrete and representational phases of CRA. William’s
teachers choose to introduce the representational aspect of
place value by first showing him pictures of Base-10 blocks.
After providing an overview and expectations for the lesson,
the teacher introduces a picture of various outlines of Base-
10 blocks that represent hundreds, tens, and ones blocks.
The teacher models coloring in the appropriate blocks to
represent numbers. She models and thinks out loud as she
compares colored pictures of Base-10 blocks and places the
greater than/less than sign between the numbers. The teacher
and William color in the appropriate representations for two
other three-digit numbers together. They discuss which ab-
stract symbol (greater than or less than) should be placed be-
tween the two numbers. Finally, William colors in the Base-10
representations independently and determines which num-
ber is greater with immediate feedback from his teacher. The
teacher also shows William how similar a hundreds chart is to
pictures of Base-10 blocks. They discuss how they could ap-
ply their coloring technique to hundreds charts. The teacher
demonstrates, coloring in a full hundreds chart, three com-
plete lines, and four individual squares to represent the num-
ber 134. She and William color some together, until William
AGRAWAL AND MORIN: APPLICATIONS OF CRA 41
seems ready to work independently, accurately representing
the number 251 on hundreds charts.
Transition to Abstract Phase
Immediately following William’s demonstration of mastery
in determining place value with the support of concrete and
representational formats, the teacher introduces the concept
in just the abstract form—with numbers and symbols only.
After providing an overview of the lesson, William’s teacher
models comparing two numbers, 157 and 136, thinking out
loud about what each digit means and explaining the mental
representations she has of each of these numbers, referencing
the use of Base-10 blocks in the previous lessons. She then
models taking the greater than/less than sign, already paired
and practiced with the place value concept during the con-
crete and representational phases, and placing it appropriately
between the two numbers so that the wider end points toward
157. She and William work on comparing several numbers
together, and finally, William compares two numbers on his
own with immediate feedback. Conceptually, he now under-
stands what a three-digit number means and why one number
is larger than another number, and how to determine which
one is larger.
Teaching Subtraction with Regrouping
After William demonstrates mastery of place value, his teach-
ers introduce addition and subtraction of numbers using the
same Base-10 blocks and the same steps. They first intro-
duce addition and subtraction without having to regroup from
the next place value, and then, finally, they introduce addi-
tion and subtraction involving regrouping. After providing
an overview of a lesson on subtraction with regrouping, the
teacher demonstrates the concept by laying out the appro-
priate Base-10 blocks to represent each number. She places
Base-10 blocks to represent the minuend, 274, over top of
Base-10 blocks that represent the subtrahend, 148. She also
writes out the same subtraction problem in its abstract form,
carefully demonstrating how to line up the integers from the
minuend over the subtrahend. She thinks aloud about the
problem of not being able to subtract 8 from 4 in the ones
column. She then slides one of the seven 10s blocks in the
minuend to the ones column; now in the one’s column she has
a ten block and four ones. She then exchanges the tens block
for ten individual ones blocks. Now she can subtract each col-
umn by using one-to-one correspondence, showing that the
answer, or difference, is the remaining blocks from the minu-
end left after the blocks from the minuend and subtrahend are
matched up. She writes down the difference in the abstract
form of the problem. Once all the steps that comprise explicit
instruction are followed for the concrete form of subtraction
with regrouping, the teacher immediately transitions to com-
bining the abstract concepts with the representational form.
Using the explicit instruction framework, William is taught to
use pictorial representations of Base-10 blocks. He is taught
to cross out a Base-10 block in one column and to draw a de-
piction of the block in the next column. Ultimately, William
42 LEARNING DISABILITIES RESEARCH

TABLE 2
Websites for Math Resources

Description
Math vocabulary cards with
visuals
What works clearinghouse
practice guides for math
Math tools
Virtual manipulatives
Word problems with bar
models
Math games
Center on instruction
Website
r http://www.ncesd.org/Page/983
r http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Publications_Reviews.aspx?f=All%20Publication%20and%20Product%20Types,3;
#pubsearch
r http://www.do2learn.com/sitemap/index.htm
r http://www.mathlanding.org/collections/pd_collection/strategies-teaching-studentsstruggling-mathematics
r https://www.teachervision.com/graphicorganizers/printable/6293.html
r http://nlvm.usu.edu/
r http://www.glencoe.com/sites/common_assets/mathematics/ebook_assets/vmf/VMFInterface.html
r http://www.mathplayground.com/thinkingblocks.html
r http://www.coolmath4kids.com/
r http://www.funbrain.com/
r http://pbskids.org/games/math.html
r http://www.centeroninstruction.org/mathematics-instruction-for-students-with-learningdisabilities-or-difficulty-
learning-mathematicsa-guide-for-teachers

transitions to using just the abstract numbers and symbols
that represent a subtraction problem that requires regrouping
as soon as he demonstrates mastery of the concept in the
concrete and representational forms. He can now conceptu-
alize the process and is able to accurately complete the task.
The teachers discuss the next step of helping William to un-
derstand how to regroup across two columns using the same
process of introducing the concept through concrete and then
representational means, combined with the abstract, before
introducing the abstract by itself.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the CRA framework has shown promise for
instructing students in different mathematical concepts. Stu-
dents with MD typically struggle with conceptual knowledge
and have difficulty connecting it with procedural knowledge
(Watson & Gable, 2013). Mastery of conceptual and pro-
cedural knowledge is integral to math achievement of stu-
dents with MD. CRA framework is an empirically supported
instructional method that helps to connect conceptual and
procedural knowledge in teaching various math concepts to
students with MD. To this end, a list of website resources for
supporting CRA is provided in Table 2. The CRA instruc-
tion should be bundled or layered with explicit instruction
framework. Progress monitoring at each phase dictates the
transition to the next phase of the CRA framework.
REFERENCES
Bottge, B. A. (2001). Reconceptualizing mathematics problem solving for
low-achieving students. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 102–112.
doi:10.1177/074193250102200204
Bouck, E. C., & Flanagan, S. M. (2010). Virtual manipulatives: What they
are and how teachers can use them. Intervention in School and Clinic,
45(3), 186–191. doi: 0.1177/1053451209349530
Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., Gersten, R., Scammacca, N., & Chavez, M.
M. (2008). Mathematics intervention for first-and second-grade stu-
dents with mathematics difficulties: The effects of Tier 2 intervention
delivered as booster lessons. Remedial and Special Education, 29(1),
20–32. doi: 10.1177/0741932507309712
Butler, F. M., Miller, S. P., Crehan, K., Babbit, B., & Pierce, T. (2003).
Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Com-
paring two teaching frameworks. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 18, 99–111. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00066
Carnine, D. (1997). Instructional design in mathematics for students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 130–141.
doi:10.1177/002221949703000201
Cawley, J. F., & Miller, J. H. (1989). Cross-sectional compar-
isons of the mathematical performance of children with learn-
ing disabilities: Are we on the right track toward comprehen-
sive programming? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 250–259.
doi:10.1177/002221948902200409
Chong, S. L., & Siegel, L. S. (2008). Stability of computa-
tional deficits in math learning disability from second through
fifth grades. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33(3), 300–317.
doi:10.1080/87565640801982387
Cotter, J. A. (2000). Using language and visualization to teach place
value. Teaching Children Mathematics, 7(2), 108–114. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ668812
Cramer, K., Behr, M., Post T., & Lesh, R. (2009). Rational Number Project:
Initial fraction ideas. Originally published in 1997 as Rational Number
Project: Fraction lessons for the middle grades - Level 1. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
Doabler, C. T., & Fien, H. (2013). Explicit mathematics instruction
what teachers can do for teaching students with mathematics dif-
ficulties. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48(5), 276–285. doi:
10.1177/1053451212473151
Englard, L. (2010). Raise the bar. Teaching Children Mathematics, 17(3),
156–163. Retrieved from http://commons.wvc.edu/agardner/math171/
downloads/Problem%20solving%20Singapore%20method.pdf
Flores, M. M. (2009). Teaching subtraction with regrouping to students
experiencing difficulty in mathematics. Preventing School Failure, 53,
145–152. doi: 10.3200/PSFL.53.3.145-152
Flores, M. M. (2010). Using the concrete-representational-abstract
framework to teach subtraction with regrouping to students at
risk for failure. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 195–207.
doi:10.1177/0741932508327467
Flores, M. M., Hinton, V. M., & Schweck, K. B. (2014). Teaching multi-
plication with regrouping to students with learning disabilities.

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(4), 171–183.
doi:10.1111/ldrp.12043
Flores, M. M., Hinton, V., & Strozier, S. D. (2014). Teaching subtraction
and multiplication with regrouping using the concrete-representational-
abstract sequence and strategic instruction model. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 29(2), 75–88. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12032
Flores, M. M., Hinton, V. M., Strozier, S. D., & Terry, S. L. (2014). Us-
ing the concrete-representational-abstract sequence and the strategic
instruction model to teach computation to students with autism spec-
trum disorders and developmental disabilities. Education and Training
in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49(4), 547–554.
Fuchs, L. S., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M.,
Fuchs, D., et al. (2010). The effects of strategic counting instruction,
with and without deliberate practice, on number combination skill
among students with mathematics difficulties. Learning and Individual
Differences, 20(2), 89–100. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.09.003
Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Hiebert, J. C., Murray, H. G., Human, P. G., Olivier,
A. I., et al. (1997). Children’s conceptual structures for multidigit num-
bers and methods of multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 28(2), 130–162. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/749759
Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early iden-
tification and interventions for students with mathematics dif-
ficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 293–304.
doi:10.1177/00222194050380040301
Ginsburg, A., Leinwand, S., Anstrom, T., & Pollock, E. (2005). What the
United States can learn from Singapore’s world-class mathematics sys-
tem (and what Singapore can learn from the United States): An ex-
ploratory study. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Goldman, S. R., Hasselbring, T. S., & The Cognition and Technology Group
at Vanderbilt. (1997). Achieving meaningful mathematics literacy for
students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
30, 198–208. doi:10.1177/002221949703000207
Hattikudur, S. D. (2011). Comparing concepts and procedures in math
learning (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database (UMI No. 3486791).
Hiebert, J. (1985). Children’s knowledge of common and decimal frac-
tions. Education and Urban Society, 17, 427–437. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ322992
Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1992). Links between teaching and learn-
ing place value with understanding in first grade. Journal for Re-
search in Mathematics Education, 23(2), 98–122. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/749496
Hinton, V., Strozier, S. D., & Flores, M. M. (2014). Building mathematical
fluency for students with disabilities or students at-risk for mathematics
failure. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science
and Technology, 2(4). Retrieved from http://www.ulakbim.gov.tr
Jordan, L., Miller, D., & Mercer, C. D. (1999). The effects of con-
crete to semiconcrete to abstract instruction in the acquisition
and retention of fraction concepts and skills. Learning Disabili-
ties: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(3), 115–122. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ594987
Kridler, P. G. (2012). Procedural and conceptual knowledge: A balanced ap-
proach? (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database (UMI No. 3521915).
Maccini, P., & Hughes, C. A. (2000). Effects of a problem-solving strategy
on the introductory algebra performance of secondary students with
learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15
(1), 10–21. doi: 10.1207/SLDRP1501_2
Maccini, P., & Ruhl, K. L. (2000). Effects of a graduated instructional
sequence on the algebraic subtraction of integers by secondary students
with learning disabilities. Education & Treatment of Children (ETC),
23(4), 465–489. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ630949
Mancl, D. B., Miller, S. P., & Kennedy, M. (2012). Using the concrete-
representational-abstract framework with integrated strategy instruc-
tion to teach subtraction with regrouping to students with learning dis-
abilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 27, 152–166.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00363.x
Meyer, M. L., Salimpoor, V. N., Wu, S. S., Geary, D. C., & Menon, V. (2010).
Differential contribution of specific working memory components to
mathematics achievement in 2nd and 3rd graders. Learning and Indi-
vidual Differences, 20(2), 101–109. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.08.004
AGRAWAL AND MORIN: APPLICATIONS OF CRA 43
Miller, S. P., & Hudson, P. J. (2007). Using evidence-based practices to
build mathematics competence related to conceptual, procedural, and
declarative knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
22, 47–57. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00230.x
Miller, S. P., & Kaffar, B. J. (2011). Developing addition and regrouping
competence among second grade students with mathematics difficul-
ties. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 4(1), 25–51. Retrieved
from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ950987
Miller, S. P., Stringfellow, J. L., Kaffar, B. J., Ferreira, D., & Mancl, D.
B. (2011). Developing computation competence among students who
struggle with mathematics. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(2), 38–
46. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ945988
Misquitta, R. (2011). A review of literature: Fraction instruction for strug-
gling learners in mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 26, 109–119. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00330.x
Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy
instruction on the mathematical problem solving of middle school stu-
dents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25,
230–244. doi:10.1177/002221949202500404
Morin, V. A., & Miller, S. P. (1998). Teaching multiplication to mid-
dle school students with mental retardation. Education and Treat-
ment of Children, 21, 22–36. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=
EJ567371
Mulcahy, C. A., & Krezmien, M. P. (2009). Effects of a contextualized
instructional package on the mathematics performance of secondary
students with EBD. Behavioral Disorders, 34, 136–150. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/1903/7262
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles
and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2008). Professional
standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council
of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state stan-
dards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org
National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP). (2008). Foundations for
success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Peterson, S. K., Mercer, C. D., & O’Shea, L. (1988). Teaching learning
disabled students place value using the concrete to abstract sequence.
Learning Disabilities Research, 4(1), 52–56.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing
conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An
iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346–362.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.346
Sammons, L. (2010). Guided math. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Education.
Satsangi, R., & Bouck, E. C. (2014). Using virtual manipulative instruction
to teach the concepts of area and perimeter to secondary students
with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38 (3), 174–186. doi:
10.1177/0731948714550101
Scheuermann, A. M., Deschler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2009). The
effects of the explicit inquiry routine on the performance of students
with learning disabilities on one-variable equation. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 32 (2), 103–120. doi: 10.2307/27740360
Schneider, M., Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2011). Relations among
conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and procedural flex-
ibility in two samples differing in prior knowledge. Developmental
Psychology, 47(6), 1525. Retrieved from http://www.uni-trier.de/
fileadmin/fb1/prof/PSY/PAE/Team/Schneider/SchneiderEtAl2011.
pdf
Stein, M. K., & Bovalino, J. W. (2001). Manipulatives: One piece of the puz-
zle. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6, 356–359. Retrieved
from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ668835
Strickland, T. K., & Maccini, P. (2010). Strategies for teaching algebra
to students with learning disabilities: Making research to practice
connections. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(1), 38–45. doi:
10.1177/1053451210369519
Strickland, T. K., & Maccini, P. (2013). The effects of the concrete–
representational–abstract integration strategy on the ability of stu-
dents with learning disabilities to multiply linear expressions within
area problems. Remedial and Special Education, 34(3), 142–153.
doi:10.1177/0741932512441712
44 LEARNING DISABILITIES RESEARCH

Suh, J. M., & Moyer, P. S. (2008). Scaffolding special needs students’ learn-
ing of fraction equivalence using virtual manipulatives. Proceedings of
the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education,
4, 297–304.
Swanson, H. L. (2012). Cognitive profile of adolescents with math-
ematics disabilities: Are the profiles different from those with
reading disabilities? Child Neuropsychology, 18(2), 125–143.
doi:10.1080/09297049.2011.589377
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs [U.S.
DOE-OSEP]. (2000). Concrete-representational-abstract instruc-
tional approach. The Access Center (No. H326K020003). Retrieved
from http://165.139.150.129/intervention/ConcreteRepresentational
AbstractInstructionalApproach.pdf
van Garderen, D., & Montague, M. (2003). Visual-spatial representa-
tion, mathematical problem solving, and students of varying abili-
ties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(4), 246–254. doi:
10.1111/1540-5826.00079
Vukovic, R. K., & Siegel, L. S. (2010). Academic and cognitive charac-
teristics of persistent mathematics difficulty from first through fourth
grade. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(1), 25–38. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00298.x
Watson, S. M., & Gable, R. A. (2013). Unraveling the complex na-
ture of mathematics learning disability: Implications for research
and practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(3), 178–187. doi:
10.1177/0731948712461489
Watt, S. J., Watkins, J. R., & Abbitt, J. (2014). Teaching algebra to students
with learning disabilities: Where have we come and where should
we go? Journal of Learning Disabilities, December 29, 2014, doi:
10.1177/0022219414564220
Witzel, B. S. (2005). Using CRA to teach algebra to students with
math difficulties in inclusive settings. Learning Disabilities—
A Contemporary Journal, 3(2), 49–60. Retrieved from http://
www.catea.gatech.edu/scitrain/kb/FullText_Articles/Witzel_Using.
pdf
Witzel, B. S., Mercer, C. D., & Miller, M. D. (2003). Teaching algebra
to students with learning disabilities: An investigation of an explicit
instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18,
121–131. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00068
Witzel, B. S., & Riccomini, P. J. (2009). Computation of fractions: Math
intervention for elementary and middle grades students. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson.
Witzel, B. S., Riccomini, P. J., & Schneider, E. (2008). Implement-
ing CRA with secondary students with learning disabilities in
mathematics. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43, 270–276.
doi:10.1177/1053451208314734
Zheng, X., Flynn, L. J., & Swanson, H. L. (2013). Experimental intervention
studies on word problem solving and mathematics disabilities: A se-
lective analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(2),
97–111. doi: 10.1177/0731948712444277

About the Authors

Jugnu Agrawal, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor in the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University
in Fairfax, VA. Her research interests include mathematics interventions, word-problem solving and reading comprehension
interventions for students with learning disabilities and autism across K-12 settings.
Lisa L. Morin, Ph.D., is an adjunct special education professor at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA. Dr. Morin’s research
interests includes mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities. Dr. Morin has delivered many presentations
on international, national, and state levels on the topics of schematic-based instruction (SBI), working memory, math word
problem solving, and evidenced-based math strategies.