By Hanna A. Kubas and James B. Hale
Mathematics. Some love it, some loathe it, but there are many myths about math achievement and math learning disabilities (LDs). The old belief – boys are naturally better at math than girls – may be more a consequence of teacher differences or societal expectations than individual differences in math skill (Lindberg, Hyde, Petersen, & Linn, 2010).
Similarly, the old belief that reading is a left brain task, and math is a right brain task, is not a useful dichotomy as clearly multiple shared and distinct brain regions explain these academic domains (e.g., Ashkenazi, Black, Abrams, Hoeft, & Menon, 2013).
Math is a language with symbols that represent quantity facts instead of language facts (i.e., vocabulary), so rules (syntax) are important for both (Maruyama, Pallier, Jobert, Sigman, & Dehaene, 2012). You might be surprised to learn that approximately 7% of school-aged children have a LD in mathematics (Geary, Hoard, Nugent, & Bailey 2012).
Let’s first explore the fundamental skills needed for math achievement.
Number Sense / Numerical Knowledge
Children develop knowledge of quantity even before math instruction in schools, and kindergarten number sense is predictive of math computation and problem solving skills in elementary school (Jordan et al., 2010). These basic math skills include understanding of number magnitudes, relations, and operations (e.g., adding). Children link basic number sense to symbolic representations of quantity (numbers); the math “language”. Poor early number sense predicts math LDs in later grades (Mazzocco & Thompson, 2005).
Math Computation vs. Math Fluency
Children often rely on various strategies when solving simple calculation problems, but math computation requires caring out a sequence of steps on paper or in your mind (working memory) to arrive at an answer. Math fluency refers to how quickly and accurately students can answer simple math problems without having to compute an answer (i.e., from memory 6 x 6 = 36), with no “steps”, calculation, or number sense needed.
Children with fluency deficits often use immature counting strategies and often do not shift from computation to storing and retrieving math facts from memory, taking more time to provide an answer. Difficulty with retrieval of math facts is a weakness/deficit associated with math LDs (Geary et al., 2007; Gersten, Jordan, & Flojo, 2005). Without math fact automaticity, working memory may be taxed when doing computation, and the child “loses his place” in the problem while computing each part to arrive at a final answer.
Developmental Sequence of Math Skills
1. Finger Counting Strategies: Students first display both addends/numbers with their fingers; this is the most immature strategy.
2. Verbal Counting Strategies: Next, students begin to develop basic adding skills and typically go through three phases.
- Sum: counting both addends/numbers starting from 1, this is a beginning math counting skill;
- Max:counting from the smaller number; and finally
- Min:counting from the larger number (most efficient strategy).
3. Decomposition (Splitting) Strategies: Students learn that a whole can be decomposed into parts in different ways, a good problem solving strategy for unknown math facts
4. Automatic Retrieval from Long-Term Memory: Students become faster and more efficient at pairing problems they see with correct answers stored in long-term memory (as is the case with sight word reading), no computation is required
The Role of Visual-Spatial Skills
Basic arithmetic skills are factual, detailed “left hemisphere” functions (similar to basic reading), but Byron Rourke (2001) discovered many students with nonverbal or “right hemisphere” LDs had math calculation problems, suggesting left was verbal and right nonverbal.
Students need “right hemisphere” visual/spatial skills to align numbers when setting up multistep math problems, they need to need to be able to understand and spatially represent relationships and magnitude between numbers, and they need to be able to interpret spatially represented information (Geary, 2013).
Neuropsychology has also taught us that children with visual/spatial problems may neglect the left side of stimuli (the left visual field is contralateral to the right hemisphere) (Hale & Fiorello, 2004; Rourke, 2000).
Math Reasoning and Problem-Solving
Word problems require both receptive and expressive language skills, unlike simple calculation, so students with language-based LDs may struggle even if math skills are good. Students must translate math problem sentences/words into numbers and equations, so they must identify what the sentences are asking them to do in terms of calculation, and then perform the calculation
Students with LDs are typically poor strategic learners and problem solvers, and often manifest strategy deficits that hinder performance, particularly on tasks that require higher level processing (Montague, 2008). So there is a strong relationship between fluid reasoning, executive functioning, and quantitative reasoning (Hale et al., 2008). Students with LDs often benefit from explicit instruction in selecting, applying, monitoring, evaluating use of appropriate strategies to solve word problems.
The Brain, Math, and LDs
Strategies for Promoting Math Computation and Fluency
Note : Your understanding of foundational mathematical concepts and skills is critical for targeted interventions that are developed, implemented, monitored, evaluated, and modified until treatment efficacy is obtained!
Remember: early identification and intervention are key!
Strategic Number Counting
Fuchs et al. 2009
Goal: Improve counting strategies (e.g., MIN; decomposition) to efficiently pair problem stems and answers
Skills Targeted: Explicitly teach math counting strategies when number sense or algorithm adherence is limited
Target Age Group: Elementary students struggling with basic computation and quantity-number association
- Direct instruction of efficient counting (g., MIN for addition), followed by guided practice.
- For two-number addition, students start with larger number and count for smaller number/addend.
- For two-number subtraction, students start at ‘minus number’ and count up to ‘starting number,’ tallying numbers
- Flashcards used to math fact encoding, storage, and/or retrieval deficits. Optional number line can enhance method.
- Fuchs et al. (2009) found strategic counting led to better math fact fluency compared to control groups, even better if combined with intensive drill and practice
- Strategic counting with and without deliberate practice better math fluency, with deliberate practice better than controls (Fuchs et al., 2010)
- Click here to access a number line and a strategic number counting instruction score sheet available on the Intervention Central.
Drill and Practice
Fuchs et al. 2008
Goal: Drill and practice interventions help children quickly and accurately recall simple math facts
Skills Targeted: Practice and repetition of math fact calculations
Target Age Group: Students struggling with basic math facts, especially with limited automaticity
- May be paper-and-pencil and/or computerized drill and practice in either a game or drill format, typically includes modeling, practice, frequent administration, and brief, timed practice, self-management, and reinforcement
- Drill and practice with math problem solving strategies may be more effective
- Software to ensure correct student response; math facts appear for 1-3 seconds, and students reproduce the whole equation and answer from short-term memory
- Students visually encode both the number question and answer for long-term memory storage
- Connection between math fact rehearsal and increased fact retention and generalization (Burns, 2005; Codding et al., 2010; Duhon et al., 2012)
- Promotes efficient paring of problems and the correct answers (Fuchs et al., 2008)
- Computer versions improve math fact retrieval fluency (Burns et al., 2010; Slavin & Lake, 2008)
- Click here to access a website for free math fact flashcards.
- Click here to access free math computation worksheets and answer keys for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.
Skinner et al. 1997
Goal: Improve accuracy and speed in basic math facts
Skills Targeted: Students taught self-management through modeling, guided practice, and corrective feedback
Target Age Group: Students learning basic math facts, those with executive, sequential, or integration problems
- Students learn 5-step strategy to solve simple math equations and self-evaluating correct responses
- Students look at math problem, cover it, copy it, and evaluate response to compare to original
- For errors, brief error correction procedure undertaken before next item introduced
- Strategy requires little teaching time or student training
- CCC procedures enhance math accuracy and fluency across general education (Codding et al., 2009; Grafman & Cates, 2010) and special education (Poncy et al., 2007; Skinner et al., 1997)
- Meta-analysis of many studies shows CCC improves math performance, especially when coupled with other evidence-based methods (e.g., token economies, goal setting, correct digits, increased response opportunity; Joseph et al., 2012)
- Click here to access a CCC intervention description including worksheet and performance log at Intervention Central.
Poncy, Skinner & O’Mara, 2006
Goal: Promote efficient basic math fact practice targeting problems not completed accurately and/or fluently
Skills Targeted: Encoding and retrieval of math facts from long-term memory
Target Age Group: Students developing basic math facts, may be useful for executive memory difficulties
- DPR is a 3-phase test-teach-test procedure for individualizing math fact instruction for basic fact groups (e.g., addition)
- (1) Detect phase - metronome determined rate to determine automatic (< 2 seconds) vs. slow (>2 second) math fact responding
- (2) Practice phase using Cover-Copy-Compare (CCC; see description above)
- (3) Repair phase using 1-minute math sprint with items requiring practice embedded in automatic ones
- DPR validated across grades, skills, and research designs (Poncy et al., 2013)
- Improves subtraction, multiplication, and division fluency (Axtell et al., 2009; Poncy et al., 2006; 2010; Parkhurst et al., 2010)
- Differentiation possible because DPR targets specific difficulties (Poncy et al., 2013)
Reciprocal Peer Tutoring
Fuchs et al., 2008
Goal: Peer tutoring procedure includes explicit timing, immediate response feedback, and overcorrection
Skills Targeted: Basic math fact retrieval and automaticity through constant engagement in dyads
Target Age Group: All students, but especially useful for students with poor attention or persistence
- Students are paired up and take turns serving as the “tutor”
- Flashcards with problem on one side (e.g., 2 x 3 = ___) and answer on other side (e.g., 6)
- Student tutors shows flashcard, tutee responds verbally
- Tutor states either “correct,” (and puts in correct stack) or “incorrect” (and puts in incorrect stack)
- If incorrect, tutee writes problem and correct answer 3 times on paper
- Roles change after 2 minutes; then students complete 1 minute math probes and grade each other
- Multicomponent approach + other evidence-based efforts improve math fact rates (Rhymer et al., 2000)
- Improves math achievement, engagement, and prosocial interactions (Rohrbeck et al., 2003)
- Improves achievement, self-concept, and attitudes (Bowman-Perrot et al., 2013; Tsuei, 2012)
Strategies for Promoting Math Problem-Solving
Schema Theory Instruction
Jitendra et al. 2002
Goal: Teaches mathematical problem structures, strategies to solve, and transfer to solve novel problems
Skills Targeted: Expanding student math problem solving schemas
Target Age Group: Students in any grade learning math problem solving skills, helps conceptual “gestalt”
- Encourages math problem solving schemas for word problems, identifying new, unfamiliar, or unnecessary information, and grouping novel problem features into broad schema for strategy use
- Explicit instruction in recognizing, understanding, and solving problems based on mathematical structures; can be used with schema-broadening instruction for generalization (e.g., Fuchs et al., 2008)
- Randomized controlled trials show improved math word problem solving (Fuchs et al., 2008, 2009)
- Schema-based approach generalizes into better math word problem solving (Jitendra et al., 2002; 2007; Xin, Jitendra, & Deatline-Buchman, 2005)
Mercer & Miller, 1992
Goal: Self-regulated strategy instruction method for increasing math problem solving skills
Skills Targeted: Targets self-teaching, self-monitoring, and self-support strategies for identifying salient math words in sentences, determining and completing operation, and checking accuracy
Target Age Group: Students struggling with executive monitoring and evaluation skills
- Teaches 8-step math word problems strategy and self-regulation
- The mnemonic FAST DRAW cues students, can use as checklist
- Increases math achievement and improves math attitude (Tok & Keskin, 2012)
- Increases math achievement in math LD (Miller & Mercer, 1997; Cassel & Reid, 1996)
Cognitive Strategy Instruction
Montague & Dietz, 2009
Goal: Teach multiple cognitive strategies to enhance math problem solving skills
Skills Targeted: Focuses on cognitive processes, including executive functions (self-regulation/metacognition)
Target Age Group: Useful for differentiating instruction based on processing weaknesses
- Teaches 7-step cognitive strategy for solving math word problems, with 3-step metacognitive self-coaching routine for each step
- Direct instruction includes structured lesson plans, cognitive modeling, guided practice cues and prompts, distributed practice, frequent teacher-student interaction, immediate corrective feedback, positive reinforcement, overlearning, and mastery
- 7-step process includes:
- Read the problem for understanding
- Paraphrase the problem in your own words
- Visualize a picture or a diagram to accompany the written problem
- Hypothesize a plan to solve the problem
- Estimate/predict the answer
- Compute the answer
- Check your answer to make sure everything is right Say, Ask, Check metacognitive routine in each of the 7-step cognitive processes
- Say requires self-talk to identify and direct self when solving problem
- Ask requires self-questioning, promoting self-talk internal dialogue
- Check requires self-monitoring strategy for checking understanding and accuracy
- Self-regulation strategies foster math problem solving in meta-analyses (Kroesbergen & van Luit, 2003)
- Cognitive strategy instruction increases math problem solving skills in general education (Mercer & Miller, 1992, Montague et al. 2011) and ADHD and LD (Iseman & Naglieri, 2011)
Related Resources on the LD@school Website
Click here to access the answer to the question: There is a lot of information about identifying learning disabilities in mathematics. However, information about strategies and ideas for working with these disabilities is limited. What strategies work?.
Ashkenazi, S., Black, J. M., Abrams, D. A., Hoeft, F., & Menon, V. (2013). Neurobiological underpinnings of math and reading learning disabilities. Journal of learning disabilities, 46(6), 549-569.
Axtell, P. K., McCallum, R. S., Mee Bell, S., & Poncy, B. (2009). Developing math automaticity using a classwide fluency building procedure for middle school students: A preliminary study. Psychology in the Schools, 46(6), 526-538.
Bowman-Perrott, L., Davis, H., Vannest, K., Williams, L., Greenwood, C., & Parker, R. (2013). Academic benefits of peer tutoring: A meta-analytic review of single-case research. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 39-55.
Burns, M. K. (2005). Using incremental rehearsal to increase fluency of single-digit multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation. Education and Treatment of Children, 237-249.
Cassel, J., & Reid, R. (1996). Use of a self-regulated strategy intervention to improve word problem-solving skills of students with mild disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6(2), 153-172.
Codding, R. S., Archer, J., & Connell, J. (2010). A systematic replication and extension of using incremental rehearsal to improve multiplication skills: An investigation of generalization. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19(1), 93-105.
Codding, R. S., Chan-Iannetta, L., Palmer, M., & Lukito, G. (2009). Examining a classwide application of cover-copy-compare with and without goal setting to enhance mathematics fluency. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(3), 173.
Duhon, G. J., House, S. H., & Stinnett, T. A. (2012). Evaluating the generalization of math fact fluency gains across paper and computer performance modalities. Journal of school psychology, 50(3), 335-345.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). A framework for building capacity for responsiveness to intervention.School Psychology Review, 35(4), 621.
Fuchs, L. S., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (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.
Fuchs, L. S., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M., Fuchs, D., ... & Zumeta, R. O. (2009). Remediating number combination and word problem deficits among students with mathematics difficulties: A randomized control trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 561.
Fuchs, L. S., Seethaler, P. M., Powell, S. R., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Effects of preventative tutoring on the mathematical problem solving of third-grade students with math and reading difficulties. Exceptional Children, 74(2), 155-173.
Geary, D. C. (2013). Early foundations for mathematics learning and their relations to learning disabilities.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 23-27.
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd‐Craven, J., Nugent, L., & Numtee, C. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child development,78(4), 1343-1359.
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Bailey, D. H. (2012). Mathematical cognition deficits in children with learning disabilities and persistent low achievement: A five-year prospective study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 206-217.
Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of learning disabilities, 38(4), 293-304.
Grafman, J. M., & Cates, G. L. (2010). The differential effects of two self‐managed math instruction procedures: Cover, Copy, and Compare versus Copy, Cover, and Compare. Psychology in the Schools,47(2), 153-165.
Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2004). School neuropsychology: A practitioner’s handbook. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hale, J. B., Fiorello, C. A., Dumont, R., Willis, J. O., Rackley, C., & Elliott, C. (2008). Differential Ability Scales–Second Edition (neuro)psychological Predictors of Math Performance for Typical Children and Children with Math Disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 838-858.
Iseman, J. S., & Naglieri, J. A. (2011). A cognitive strategy instruction to improve math calculation for children with ADHD and LD: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(2), 184-195.
Jitendra, A. (2002). Teaching students math problem-solving through graphic representations. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(4), 34-38.
Jitendra, A. K., DuPaul, G. J., Volpe, R. J., Tresco, K. E., Junod, R. E. V., Lutz, J. G., ... & Mannella, M. C. (2007). Consultation-based academic intervention for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: School functioning outcomes. School Psychology Review, 36(2), 217.
Jordan, N. C., Glutting, J., & Ramineni, C. (2010). The importance of number sense to mathematics achievement in first and third grades. Learning and individual differences, 20(2), 82-88.
Joseph, L. M., Konrad, M., Cates, G., Vajcner, T., Eveleigh, E., & Fishley, K. M. (2012). A meta‐analytic review of the cover‐copy‐compare and variations of this self‐management procedure. Psychology in the Schools,49(2), 122-136.
Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs a meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 97-114.
Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 136(6), 1123.
Maruyama, M., Pallier, C., Jobert, A., Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2012). The cortical representation of simple mathematical expressions. NeuroImage, 61(4), 1444-1460.
Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (2006). Frequency of reading, math, and writing disabilities in children with clinical disorders. Learning and individual Differences, 16(2), 145-157.
Mazzocco, M. M., & Thompson, R. E. (2005). Kindergarten predictors of math learning disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(3), 142-155.
Mercer, C. D., & Miller, S. P. (1992). Teaching students with learning problems in math to acquire, understand, and apply basic math facts. Remedial and Special Education, 13(3), 19-35.
Montague, M. (2008). Self-regulation strategies to improve mathematical problem solving for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(1), 37-44.
Montague, M., & Dietz, S. (2009). Evaluating the evidence base for cognitive strategy instruction and mathematical problem solving. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 285-302.
Montague, M., Enders, C., & Dietz, S. (2011). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on math problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(4), 262-272.
Parkhurst, J., Skinner, C. H., Yaw, J., Poncy, B., Adcock, W., & Luna, E. (2010). Efficient class-wide remediation: Using technology to identify idiosyncratic math facts for additional automaticity drills.International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 6(2), 111.
Poncy, B. C., Fontenelle IV, S. F., & Skinner, C. H. (2013). Using detect, practice, and repair (DPR) to differentiate and individualize math fact instruction in a class-wide setting. Journal of Behavioral Education, 22(3), 211-228.
Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & Jaspers, K. E. (2007). Evaluating and comparing interventions designed to enhance math fact accuracy and fluency: Cover, copy, and compare versus taped problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16(1), 27-37.
Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & O'Mara, T. (2006). Detect, Practice, and Repair: The Effects of a Classwide Intervention on Elementary Students' Math-Fact Fluency. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools.
Rhymer, K. N., Dittmer, K. I., Skinner, C. H., & Jackson, B. (2000). Effectiveness of a multi-component treatment for improving mathematics fluency. School Psychology Quarterly, 15(1), 40.
Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 240.
Rourke, B. P. (2000). Neuropsychological and psychosocial subtyping: A review of investigations within the University of Windsor laboratory. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 41(1), 34.
Skinner, C. H., McLaughlin, T. F., & Logan, P. (1997). Cover, copy, and compare: A self-managed academic intervention effective across skills, students, and settings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7(3), 295-306.
Slavin, R. E., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis.Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 427-515.
Tok, Ş., & Keskin, A. (2012). The Effect of Fast Draw Learning Strategy on the Academic Achievement and Attitudes Towards Mathematics. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education (formerly CAL-laborate International), 20(4).
Tsuei, M. (2012). Using synchronous peer tutoring system to promote elementary students’ learning in mathematics. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1171-1182.
Xin, Y. P., Jitendra, A. K., & Deatline-Buchman, A. (2005). Effects of mathematical word Problem—Solving instruction on middle school students with learning problems. The Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 181-192.