A Mixed Method Study on Schema-Based Instruction,

Mathematical Problem Solving Skills, and Students with an Educational Disability

by

Bill Casner

A Dissertation submitted to the Education Faculty of Lindenwood University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of

Doctor of Education

School of Education
 ProQuest Number: 10244398

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 10244398

Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2016 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 A Mixed Method Study on Schema-Based Instruction,

Mathematical Problem Solving Skills, and Students with an Educational Disability

by

Bill Casner

This dissertation has been approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of

Doctor of Education

at Lindenwood University by the School of Education

 Declaration of Originality

I do hereby declare and attest to the fact that this is an original study based solely upon

my own scholarly work here at Lindenwood University and that I have not submitted it

for any other college or university course or degree here or elsewhere.

Full Legal Name: William Patrick Casner

 Acknowledgements

I am appreciative of so many people who assisted me through this research study.

First, I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Lynda Leavitt. Dr. Leavitt pushed

me to grow as a researcher, writer, and lifelong learner at Lindenwood University. Her

guidance, intellect, and passion for education were evident in every conversation and

gentle nudge to keep writing. I would also like to thank Dr. Sherrie Wisdom and Dr.

Mollie Bolton, my committee members. Dr. Wisdom listened patiently to any question

and helped me think through these questions to find answers; she also provided great

assistance with many calculations in the course of this study. Dr. Bolton frequently

checked in with me to ensure I was continually progressing. Her calm demeanor,

reassurance, and belief in me helped sustain me during this arduous process. I would like

to thank all of the participants of the study – both educators and students – who allowed

me to explore my research question and provided honest, thoughtful input. Without their

willingness to participate and sacrifice of their time, this study would not have been

possible. I also need to extend a heartfelt thanks to my dear friend Andrew Gensler. Mr.

Gensler spent hours of his own time editing, proofing, and commenting on my

dissertation. I also want to thank my family, friends, and colleagues; their support, care,

and love have allowed me to succeed in this venture and achieve my dream of earning my

doctorate.

i
 Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the student outcomes of implementing

schema-based instruction on students in grades 3-8 identified with an educational

disability and ascertain how students’ developed mathematical problem solving skills.

After special education teachers in a metropolitan school district in the Midwest

administered a pre-assessment, the researcher used the results to select 21 students with

an educational disability to participate in the mixed-methods study. Special education

teachers implemented Asha K. Jitendra’s (2007) educational program titled, Solving Math

Word Problems: Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities Using Schema-Based

Instruction, during the 2013-2014 school year and taught participants using these

techniques. The researcher measured student achievement by using both a pre and post-

assessment and M-CAP benchmark scores on mathematical problem solving. In

addition, the researcher gathered perceptions of schema-based instruction via surveys and

interviews with special education teachers, general education teachers, and student

participants. The analysis of quantitative data from the pre and post-assessments of

students participating in the schema-based program as well as the analysis of qualitative

data from student participant surveys supported a positive outcome on the use of schema-

based instruction with students with an educational disability; the findings of this study

reinforced the then-current literature. However, the student participants’’ M-CAP

assessment data did not demonstrate the same amount of growth as the assessment data

from the schema-based program. In addition, the analysis of survey and interview data

ii
from the two teacher groups also displayed discrepancies between special education

teachers’ and general education teachers’ overall perceptions of the schema-based

instructional program. Despite this, the preponderance of evidence demonstrated most

students who participated in the study did learn as a result of the schema-based

instruction and developed mathematical problem-solving skills. Therefore, the findings

of this study corroborated the then-current literature and supported the continual use of

the researched program; Solving Math Word Problems: Teaching Students with Learning

Disabilities Using Schema-Based Instruction, by Jitendra (2007). The researcher

concluded this program a valid research-based intervention to increase mathematical

problem solving skills for students with an educational disability.

iii
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. i

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x

Chapter One ........................................................................................................................ 1

Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose of the Dissertation ............................................................................................. 4

Rationale ......................................................................................................................... 5

Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 6

RQ1 ............................................................................................................................. 6

RQ2 ............................................................................................................................. 6

RQ3 ............................................................................................................................. 6

Hypotheses ...................................................................................................................... 6

H1 ................................................................................................................................ 6

H2 ................................................................................................................................ 6

H3 ................................................................................................................................ 6

Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 6

Definition of Terms......................................................................................................... 8

Autism ......................................................................................................................... 8

Conceptual understanding ........................................................................................... 8

Common Core State Standards ................................................................................... 8

Declarative knowledge................................................................................................ 8

iv
 Department of Elementary and Secondary Education ................................................ 9

Incidence ..................................................................................................................... 9

Intellectual disability................................................................................................... 9

Language impairment ................................................................................................. 9

Learning disability ...................................................................................................... 9

Math Concepts & Applications ................................................................................. 10

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics ......................................................... 10

Other health impairment ........................................................................................... 10

Procedural knowledge ............................................................................................... 10

Schema-based instruction ......................................................................................... 11

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 11

Chapter Two: The Literature Review ............................................................................... 12

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 12

History of Mathematics Education in the United States ............................................... 12

Math and Student Learning ........................................................................................... 16

Problem Solving............................................................................................................ 18

Problem Solving Struggles ........................................................................................... 20

Best Practices in Mathematical Problem Solving ......................................................... 23

Special Education.......................................................................................................... 28

Specialized Instruction in Math .................................................................................... 36

Schema-Based Instruction ............................................................................................ 38

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 45

Chapter Three: Methodology ............................................................................................ 47

v
 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 47

Problem Statement ........................................................................................................ 47

Context Description ...................................................................................................... 48

Participant Description.................................................................................................. 48

Student Participants ...................................................................................................... 50

Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 51

RQ1 ........................................................................................................................... 51

RQ2 ........................................................................................................................... 51

RQ3 ........................................................................................................................... 51

Hypotheses .................................................................................................................... 52

NH1 ........................................................................................................................... 52

NH2 ........................................................................................................................... 52

NH3 ........................................................................................................................... 52

Procedure for Data Collection ...................................................................................... 52

Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 54

Scripted lessons and pre and post-assessment .......................................................... 54

Math concepts and applications ................................................................................ 54

Special education teacher interview.......................................................................... 55

Surveys ...................................................................................................................... 55

Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 56

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 57

Chapter Four: Results ....................................................................................................... 58

Overview ....................................................................................................................... 58

vi
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 58

RQ1 ........................................................................................................................... 58

RQ2 ........................................................................................................................... 58

RQ3 ........................................................................................................................... 58

Hypotheses .................................................................................................................... 58

NH1 ........................................................................................................................... 58

NH2 ........................................................................................................................... 59

NH3 ........................................................................................................................... 59

Qualitative Data ............................................................................................................ 59

Emerging Theme - Organization .................................................................................. 60

Emerging Theme – Routines or Structure .................................................................... 62

Emerging Theme - Language........................................................................................ 63

Emerging Theme - Individualization ............................................................................ 65

Emerging Theme - Generalization ................................................................................ 66

Quantitative Data .......................................................................................................... 68

Null Hypothesis #1 ................................................................................................... 68

Pre and Post-Assessments ............................................................................................. 68

Null Hypothesis #2 ................................................................................................... 70

Pre and Post-Assessment Data by Disability Category ................................................ 72

Pre and Post-Assessment Data by Grade Spans ........................................................... 74

General Education Teacher Perception Survey ............................................................ 75

Student Surveys ............................................................................................................ 77

Null Hypothesis #3 ................................................................................................... 77

vii
 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 80

Chapter Five: Discussion and Reflection .......................................................................... 81

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 81

Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 82

RQ1 ........................................................................................................................... 82

RQ2 ........................................................................................................................... 82

RQ3 ........................................................................................................................... 83

Hypotheses .................................................................................................................... 83

H1 .............................................................................................................................. 83

H2 .............................................................................................................................. 83

H3 .............................................................................................................................. 83

Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................. 83

Research Question #1. .............................................................................................. 83

Research Question #2. .............................................................................................. 84

Research Question #3. .............................................................................................. 86

Hypothesis #1............................................................................................................ 87

Hypothesis #2............................................................................................................ 88

Hypothesis #3............................................................................................................ 89

Disability Categories ..................................................................................................... 90

Grade Span .................................................................................................................... 91

Recommendations for Future Studies ........................................................................... 92

Recommendations for District ...................................................................................... 96

Recommendations to Improve Schema-Based Instructional Program ......................... 98

viii
 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 100

References ....................................................................................................................... 102

Appendix A ..................................................................................................................... 117

Appendix B ..................................................................................................................... 118

Appendix C ..................................................................................................................... 119

Appendix D ..................................................................................................................... 122

Vitae ................................................................................................................................ 125

ix
 List of Tables

Table 1. Special Education Teacher Demographics ....................................................... 49

Table 2. Number of Students by Disability .................................................................... 51

Table 3. Emerging Themes by Research Question ......................................................... 59

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of General Education Teacher Surveys.......................... 60

Table 5. Interview Responses Related to Students Organizing Information .................. 61

Table 6. Interview Responses Related to Organization Using Diagrams and

Checklist ............................................................................................................. 62

Table 7. Interview Responses Related to Routine and/or Structure .............................. .62

Table 8. Interview Responses Related to Wordiness of the Program ............................ .64

Table 9. Interview Responses Related Individualization ............................................... 65

Table 10. Positive Interview Responses Related to Generalization ............................... 67

Table 11. Negative Interview Responses Related to Generalization .............................. 67

Table 12. Pre and Post-Assessment Raw Data – Problem Solving................................. 69

Table 13. T-Test of Pre and Post-Assessment ................................................................ 70

Table 14. M-CAP Fall and Spring Raw Data ................................................................. 71

Table 15. T-Test between fall and spring M-CAP .......................................................... 72

Table 16. Disability Category Descriptive Statistics of Pre and Post-Assessment

Data ..................................................................................................................... 73

Table 17. Disability Category Descriptive Statistics of M-CAP .................................... 73

Table 18. Pre and Post-Assessment Mean by Grade Span ............................................. 74

Table 19. M-CAP Mean by Grade Span ......................................................................... 75

Table 20. Percentages of General Education Teacher Survey Responses ...................... 76

x
Table 21. Specific Responses from General Education Teacher Survey........................ 76

Table 22. Student Survey Percentages and Completion Rate by Question .................... 77

Table 23. ANOVA Summary ......................................................................................... 78

Table 24. Student Survey Analysis ................................................................................. 78

Table 25. T-Test between Yes and Some........................................................................ 79

Table 26. T-test between Yes and No ............................................................................. 79

xi
 Chapter One

Overview

During the 1950s and 1960s, government and family associations started to

develop appropriate practices for students with disabilities and later used those practices

to develop quality special education programming (Esteves & Rao, 2008; U.S.

Department of Education & Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

[USDOEOSERS], 2010). Landmark court cases also paved the way for including

students with a disability in the regular classroom. Before 1975, students diagnosed with

a disability were not typically included in public schools and placed in institutions

(USDOEOSERS, 2010). In 1975, Congress passed Public Law 94-142 (PL 94-142),

Education for the Handicapped Act; and for the first time every child in the U.S. with a

disability had a right to a free and appropriate education (Esteves & Rao, 2008;

USDOEOSERS, 2010). PL94-142 improved the identification and education of these

students, as well as how procedural safeguards protected families (Esteves & Rao, 2008;

USDOEOSERS, 2010). When students received a diagnosis of an educational disability,

an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) was developed. The components of an IEP

included a statement on how the student’s disability impeded his or her learning, annual

goals to address learning deficits, and educational services with the amount of time

needed to address the learning deficits (Project IDEAL, 2013). Since 1975, there were

many revisions to the Education for Handicapped Act, which later became known as the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). Some changes included

providing appropriate special education programming for students from birth to age 21,

educating students in the least restrictive environment, increasing awareness of parental

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 2

involvement, and providing highly qualified teachers for students with disabilities

(USDEOSERS, 2010).

In October 2001, President Bush created the Commission on Excellence in

Special Education to study then-existing practices and provide recommendations. The

three major recommendations included focusing on achieving the desired results,

promoting a model of prevention instead of the discrepancy model, and first perceiving

children with a disability the same as a general education child (U.S. Department of

Education [USDOE], 2002). These recommendations were also noted in the No Child

Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (USDOE, 2002). For the first time, schools became

accountable for the progress of students with an educational disability; the act also

required all students, regardless of disability, to participate in district and state

assessments (Le Fave, 2010). NCLB forced schools to focus extra attention when

educating students with a disability, to provide these students with research-based

instruction through both sequential and objective methods (Le Fave, 2010).

All students required strong mathematical skills to effectively function in society

and complete daily tasks. Expectations of all students in the U.S. needed to increase,

including students with a disability (r4 Education Solutions, 2010). At the time of this

study, 12th grade students in the U.S. trailed 21 other countries in mathematical skills (r4

Education Solutions, 2010, p. 1). Also, in 2012, 15-year-old students across 64 countries

participated the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA, 2012, p. 4).

This assessment measured important skills that 15-year-olds needed to know to fully

participate in a 21st-century society. The 2012 PISA focused primarly on mathematics;

however, reading, science, and problem-solving were also areas assessed. The U.S.
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 3

ranked close to the middle of the 64 countries, with a ranking of 36 (PISA, 2012, p. 5),

which meant students in the U.S. performed worse than half of the countries who

participated in the assessment (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD), 2014). The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 2001)

assessed students in the fourth grade in the area of math and found the average score for

all students was 226, while students with an educational disability averaged 198 (r4

Education Solutions, 2010, p. 10). In 2009, the average score for all students was 240,

while students with an educational disability averaged a score of 221 (r4 Education

Solutions, 2010, p. 10). These results revealed, although some improvement occurred,

the expectations for mathematical education for all students in the U.S. needed to

increase, including students with an educational disability (r4 Education Solutions, 2010).

Moreover, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2011)

supported the use of rigorous and research-based interventions for students with difficulty

with mathematics. Teachers utilized a variety of assessments to inform instruction

(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2011). Assessments were

necessary and identified specific interventions of benefit to each student, gaps among

students in mathematical skills, and specific interventions that addressed those gaps

(NCTM, 2011). Strategies or interventions used with students who struggle should be

evidence-based or research-based in the learning gap (Forbringer & Fuchs, 2014). The

NCTM (2011) suggested interventions be conducted in either the general education

classroom or in small groups outside the classroom, to increase the students’ conceptual

and procedural knowledge and help them develop connections to other mathematical
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 4

areas. These interventions increased the students’ independent use of strategies, and

fostered self-responsibility for their learning (NCTM, 2011).

Purpose of the Dissertation

The purpose of this study was to measure student achievement of schema-based

instruction on mathematical problem-solving skills, for students in grades three through

eight, identified with an educational disability. Student achievement, for the purpose of

this study, was measured by pre and post-assessment and Math Concepts and

Applications (M-CAP) benchmark scores on mathematical problem solving. This project

utilized a mixed-methods study similar to Asha K. Jitendra’s (2007) educational program

titled, Solving Math Word Problems: Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities Using

Schema-Based Instruction. Special education teachers implemented this program in

grades three through five in various buildings during the 2012-2013 school year;

however, the program lacked fidelity of implementation. The sample size of 21 students

was larger than most studies on the achievement of students with a disability using

schema-based instruction. Six-out-of-the-seven studies reviewed had a sample size that

ranged from one to four students (Alter, Brown, & Pyle, 2011; Griffin & Jitendra, 2009;

Jitendra, DiPipi, & Perron-Jones, 2002; Jitendra, et al., 1998; Jitendra, George, Sood, &

Price, 2010; Jitendra & Hoff, 1996; Rockwell, Griffin, and Jones, 2011). Jitendra et al.

(1998) originally completed a study on the use of schema-based instruction on 34

students who were at-risk or who had a mild disability. This project included the

perspectives of the students, special education teachers, and general education teachers

on the outcomes for those who participated in this program.

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 5

Rationale

Students identified with an educational disability were judged according to the

same standards as their typically-developing peers (Le Fave, 2010) and frequently

achieved below typically-developing peers (NCTM, 2011). Educators across the U.S.

searched for different research-based strategies to help close this achievement gap (Le

Fave, 2010). The NCTM (2011) recommended interventions be correlated with progress

monitoring data collected by a teacher on a frequent and ongoing basis. The same group

also noted specific areas of student deficiency be addressed after data analysis occurred

(2011).

As the number of specific disability categories increased to include disabilities,

such as autism, educators developed instructional repertoires to prepare every student for

life after school. Problem solving was an important skill for all students to develop and

when mastered assisted students to transfer math skills to the real world (Hudson &

Miller, 2006). Real-world problem-solving skills, such as counting money, keeping

score, and making a purchase, were deemed as necessary life skills for any individual to

be successful in the workplace, daily living, and leisure activities (Hudson & Miller,

2006). Students with an educational disability frequently had difficulty with problem-

solving skills due to the higher level of thinking required (Hudson & Miller, 2006).

Numerous studies conducted by Jitendra and associates (1996, 1998, 2002, 2007, 2010,

2011) indicated positive outcomes of schema-based instruction with students who had a

wide variety of disabilities and noted schema-based instruction helped close the

achievement gap and teach students with an educational disability how to solve

mathematical word problems. The process of schema-based instruction integrated the use
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 6

of diagrams, reading comprehension strategies, and mathematical problem solving to

teach problem solving skills (Jitendra, 2007). Students’ conceptual and procedural

understandings increased due to schema-based instruction and the use of a step-by-step

strategy along with visual representations (Jitendra, 2007).

Research Questions

RQ1: How do special education teachers perceive the implementation of schema-

based instruction?

RQ2: How do special education teachers perceive schema-based instruction and

student achievement?

RQ3: How do general education teachers perceive schema-based instruction and

student achievement?

Hypotheses

H1: There is an increase in mathematical problem solving skills of students with

an educational diagnosis through the use of schema-based instruction, as measured by a

pre-to-post assessment.

H2: There is an increase in AIMSweb Math Concepts and Application (M-CAP)

benchmark scores of students with an educational diagnosis through the use of schema-

based instruction.

H3: Students will positively perceive the schema-based instruction, as measured

by a Likert-scale survey.

Limitations

This study had several limitations including sample size and type of sample. The

sample size was limited due to the population of 21 students with an educational
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 7

disability at the time of this study. The limited number of students received mathematical

reasoning instruction from a special education teacher. The schema-based instruction

program pre and post-assessment data sample consisted of 21 participants while the M-

CAP benchmark assessment sample only consisted of 20 participants. One student was

absent when students completed the assessment, and the school did not complete a make-

up assessment. In addition, the student survey data sample consisted of 19 participants.

The researcher received 19 parent permission slips for students to participate in the

survey. Furthermore, one classroom completed all but three ‘problem types’ in the

schema-based instructional program. The students in this classroom needed additional

time to master the first two problem types, resulting in only 10 students who answered

question five on the ,compare’ problem type, on the student survey.

The researcher used convenience sampling to select the participants. From the

total population, the researcher selected participants from the schools for which the

researcher then-currently worked. A disadvantage of convenience sampling in this study

was under-representation from the population, since the researcher had limited access to

the entire population of students in the school district. In addition, because of its size, the

convenience sample may not have been representative of the population.

All students in grades six through eight received mathematics instruction from the

special education teacher, and the general education teacher surveys were limited to

grades three through five. The only elementary school used for the study placed students

in learning levels with the same teacher, for students who struggled in the area of

mathematics. Therefore, the researcher received only four general education surveys for

use in the study analysis.

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 8

Another limitation was the number of teacher participants; only four-out-of-the-

six special education teachers interviewed utilized the schema-based instructional

program in the 2014-2015 school year. Two of the special education teachers utilized the

schema-based instructional program in the 2013-2014, however, they did not have any

students who met the criteria to participate in the study. As a result, 67% of the special

education teachers interviewed had quantitative data included in this study.

Definition of Terms

Autism:

Autism spectrum disorder is a developmental disability that can cause significant

social, communication and behavioral challenges. There is often nothing about

how people with ASD look that sets them apart from other people, but people

with ASD may communicate, interact, behave, and learn in ways that are different

from most other people. The learning, thinking, and problem-solving abilities of

people with ASD can range from gifted to severely challenged. (“Autism

Spectrum Disorder,” 2016, para. 1)

Conceptual understanding: Knowledge that helps students understand beyond

rote skills and the meanings of certain procedures (Hudson & Miller, 2006).

Common Core State Standards: A set of standards that provides clear,

consistent expectations from Kindergarten through 12th grade in the areas of

mathematics and English Language Arts, drafted by a team of experts and educators

(Common Core State Standards Initiative [CCSSI], 2016).

Declarative knowledge: Mathematical information that can be recalled without

hesitation (Hudson & Miller, 2006).

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 9

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education: One of the state of

Missouri departments that developed state educational regulations and monitored each

school district’s progress in meeting the state’s assessment benchmarks (Department of

Elementary and Secondary Education [MODESE], 2011).

Incidence: “Frequency of occurrence, such as the number of children identified

with autism” (The Iris Center, 2016, para. 8).

Intellectual disability: An educational diagnosis with “a score that is equal to or

below 2.0 standard deviations from the mean for that measure which is valid when

considering age, ethnicity, and cultural background” (MODESE, 2012, para. 1) and

“adaptive behavior is inconsistent with cognitive abilities” (MODESE, 2012, para. 2).

Language impairment: An educational diagnosis that has

consistent inappropriate use of one (1) or more of the following structures of

language: morphology (structuring words from smaller units of meaning), syntax

(putting words together in phrases and sentences—sometimes referred to as

grammar deficits), semantics (selecting words to represent intended meaning and

combining words and sentences to represent intended meaning—sometimes

referred to as vocabulary deficits) or pragmatics (using the functions of language

to communicate with others). (MODESE, 2012, para. 1)

“The child’s language functioning is significantly below the child’s cognitive abilities”

(MODESE, 2012, para. 2).

Learning disability: An educational diagnosis when

the child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet state approved

grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 10

learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or state-

approved grade-level standards: basic reading skill, reading comprehension,

reading fluency skills, written expression, mathematics calculation, mathematics

problem solving, listening comprehension or oral expression. (MODESE, 2012,

para. 1)

The child must also “exhibit a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance,

achievement, or both, relative to age, state approved grade-level standards, or intellectual

development” (MODESE, 2012, para. 2).

Math Concepts & Applications : “a test of short duration (8-10 minutes) that

measures general mathematics problem solving expected in grades 2-8” (Pearson, 2014,

para. 1) For the purpose of this study a norm-referenced local district assessment.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: A professional organization

comprised of mathematical professionals that provides resources and professional

development for the educational community (Hudson & Miller, 2006).

Other health impairment: An educational diagnosis of a child who had

a comprehensive evaluation by a licensed physician that results in the diagnosis of

a chronic or acute health problem and the documentation indicates the health

impairment results in limited strength, vitality or alertness, including a heightened

alertness to environmental stimuli. (MODESE, 2012, para. 1)

The child’s health impairment adversely affects his/her educational performance

(MODESE, 2012).

Procedural knowledge: The use of a procedural strategy to solve mathematical

equations and problems (Hudson & Miller, 2006).

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 11

Schema-based instruction: Instruction that teaches students to identify the

underlying schema of a mathematical word problem. Students identify and plan to solve

three different schematic diagrams in addition and subtraction word problems: change,

group, and compare. In multiplication and division, students identify and plan to solve

two different schematic diagrams: multiplicative compare problems, problems that

compare two problems using multiplication and division, and vary problems, problems

that involve a ratio between things. This instruction incorporates reading comprehension,

procedural knowledge, and conceptual understanding, and can be implemented with

students in general education or special education programs (Jitendra, 2007).

Summary

The purpose of this mixed methods study was to investigate the use of schema-

based instruction on mathematical problem solving for students with an educational

disability in grades three through eight. Data collection included student assessment data,

teacher and student surveys, and teacher interviews. The researcher believed this

instruction would improve the students’ abilities to solve a variety of mathematical word

problems, specifically for students with an educational disability. Chapter Two reviews

the then-current literature related to schema-based instruction, proficiency in

mathematics, mathematical problem solving, best practices in mathematics, schema-

based instruction studies, special education process, and educational disabilities. In

Chapter Three, the researcher explains the methodology, participants, and procedure for

data collection. The researcher analyzed the data described in Chapter Four and

discussed the researcher’s interpretation of the data, along with recommendations for

future studies in Chapter Five.

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 12

Chapter Two: The Literature Review

Introduction

The researcher reviewed then-current best practice for students who struggled in

the area of mathematics and aimed to provide the reader an understanding of the history

of mathematics education, mathematical learning, general best practice in mathematical

problem solving, a description of special education and specialized instruction in

mathematics, and an explanation of schema-based instruction. This review informs the

researcher, schema-based instruction could increase academic results with students with

an educational disability and who also struggle in the area of mathematics. The

predominant researcher, found repeatedly throughout the then-current literature on

schema-based instruction, Jitendra (2007), who along with fellow colleagues developed a

unique method. Multiple studies from other researchers, such as Allsopp, Kyger, and

Loving, (2007), Hong, Lim, and Mei (2009), and Sousa (2008), are also included in this

literature review.

History of Mathematics Education in the United States

After the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, Americans were concerned the

U.S. might fall behind the Soviet Union in achievement in the subjects of mathematics

and science. This fear served as a catalyst for a national movement to reform and

improve mathematics instruction in the U.S., which became known as the New Math of

the 1950s and 1960s (Barnhill, 2011; Klein, 2003; Phillips, 2014). During this reform,

the School Mathematics Study Group, financed by the National Science Foundation and

composed of mathematicians and mathematics teachers, established high school math

programs, such as the study of calculus and wrote curriculum for elementary schools
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 13

(Barnhill, 2011; Klein, 2003; Phillips, 2014). The New Math era focused on a theoretical

approach to math and less on instruction in basic arithmetic and application of

mathematical content (Barnhill, 2011; Burris, 2005; Klein, 2003; Phillips, 2014). The

public, including parents and teachers, criticized the emphasis of New Math and

eventually caused its demise (Burris, 2005; Klein, 2003; Phillips, 2014).

According to Americans’ perceptions, the New Math era was a failure and led to

detrimental outcomes of students’ understanding of mathematics, and in the 1970s a

renewed focus on students learning the basics emerged, a movement called, Back to

Basics (Barnhill, 2011; Klein, 2003; Weiss, 2005). However, the Open Education

movement, a progressive reform previously introduced in the 1920s, challenged the Back

to the Basics movement, as progressives perceived the movement to be regressive and

unable to provide students with the necessary skills to understand and apply mathematical

concepts (Barnhill, 2011; Klein, 2003). The Open Education movement allowed each

student to decide what he or she would learn each day (Barnhill, 2011; Klein, 2003).

Teachers of students who lived in poverty criticized the movement, since students lacked

support outside of school and had limited resources. In addition, in the 1970s, most states

developed competency assessments in mathematical basic skills to increase the

graduation rate (Barnhill, 2011; Klein, 2003; Weiss, 2005). Unfortunately, due to these

assessments not holding students to high standards, standardized testing scores declined

and both movements slowly dwindled (Barnhill, 2011; Klein, 2003).

In 1980, due to public critique about the quality of mathematics instruction, the

NCTM published a report called An Agenda for Action, and emphasized the importance

of mathematical problem solving, integration of technology, usage of cooperative

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 14

learning, and the use of manipulatives (Barnhill, 2011; Dossey, McCrone, &

Halvorsen2012; Klein, 2003). However, another report titled, A Nation at Risk, (National

Commission on Excellence in Education [NCEE], 1983) overshadowed the NCTM’s

report (Barnhill, 2011; Klein, 2003). A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) cautioned

Americans:

The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising

tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people. What

was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur--others are matching and

surpassing our educational attainments. (para. 1)

The Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) report stressed accountability from

standardized assessments, remedial mathematical courses offered in colleges, and an

increase of content and rigor for teachers and in textbooks. As a result of this

publication, the public demanded a change in how teachers taught mathematics in school

and many states initiated a task force to compare a state’s educational programming

(Barnhill, 2011; Klein, 2003; NCEE, 1983). This provided foundation for additional

research in the area of mathematics instruction and preempted the need for standards

(Barnhill, 2011; Klein, 2003).

In 1989, with public support of higher standards, NCTM published, The

Standards, a document which expounded upon the ideas from, An Agenda for Action and

focused on constructivism where students learned by discovery (Barnhill, 2011; Dossey

et al., 2012; Klein, 2003). The Standards (NCTM, 1989) were comprised of grade-level

bands and emphasized important content, pedagogy, and technology (Barnhill, 2011;

Klein, 2003; NCTM, 1989). At the same time, the U.S. perceived an urgent need for an
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 15

improvement in mathematical education because standardized test scores were still low.

The Standards (NCTM, 1989) became the concepts the nation utilized (as cited in

Barnhill, 2011; Dossey et al., 2012; Klein, 2003).

Shortly after the nation embraced The Standards (NCTM, 1989), companies

created mathematical curricular materials for elementary, middle, and high school levels

based on the report’s ideas while states adopted frameworks and curriculum based on The

Standards (Barnhill, 2011; Klein, 2003; (NCTM, 1989). This marked the period titled

Math Wars, where argument ensued about mathematical education, curriculum, and

materials in the U.S.; still present in the educational literature at the time of this writing

(Klein, 2003; Magid, 2015; Schoenfeld, 2003).

In 2000, NCTM revised The Standards (1989) by creating a set of principles

needed for college readiness titled, Principles and Standards for School Mathematics

(Barnhill, 2011; Klein, 2003; NCTM, 2015). This set of principles and standards

provided a rigorous outline for mathematical education in the 21st century (NCTM,

2015). By this time, almost every state constructed a set of educational standards (Klein,

2003). In 2009, many state leaders initiated a Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

movement due to the lack of student growth in the U.S. on standardized assessments

(CCSSI, 2016).

The CCSS were intended to provide a unified and detailed set of standards in

English Language Arts and mathematics, recommended for students to master by the end

of each grade throughout the U.S. for grades Kindergarten through 12 (CCSI, 2016). In

2015, 42 states adopted CCSS (2016, para. 1). However, the public debated CCSS and
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 16

new ways of teaching and an increased encroachment of the federal government in

education occurred (CCSI, 2016; Crawford, 2014).

Math and Student Learning

When designing a balanced mathematical curriculum for students, Hudson and

Miller (2006), the National Research Council (NRC, 2001), and the NAEP (2003) agreed

on specific domains, strands, and abilities mathematical learners needed to become

proficient learners. Each uniquely described the strands, and strong similarities existed

between them. Hudson and Miller (2006) stated teachers should consider the four

instructional mathematical domains: conceptual understanding, declarative knowledge,

procedural knowledge, and problem solving, when programming for students who

struggled in the area of mathematics. The NRC (2001) described five mathematical

strands necessary for student success in mathematics: conceptual understanding,

procedural fluency, strategic competence, adaptive reasoning, and productive disposition,

while the NAEP (2003) described three mathematical abilities students should possess to

be competent in mathematics: conceptual understanding, procedural knowledge, and

problem solving. Although they used different terminology in the description of each

instructional approach, each of the organizations noted perceived the different domains,

strands, and abilities as interdependent; a teacher should instruct a student in each, so he

or she becomes a proficient mathematical learner. Effective design of a mathematical

curriculum incorporated this understanding if learners were to become proficient (Hudson

& Miller, 2006; NAEP, 2003; NRC, 2001). In essence, throughout instruction and

practice, students should be required to use conceptual understanding and procedural

knowledge to problem solve (Hudson & Miller, 2006); problem solving was the ultimate
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 17

goal of mathematical instruction (Hudson & Miller, 2006; Sherman, Richardson, & Yard,

2013).

In the literature, conceptual understanding was a fundamental goal of

mathematical instruction and assisted students to transfer problem-solving skills to real

world problems. To attain understanding in math, students required mastery of the

following concepts: addition, multiplication, place value, equality, and quantity (Hudson

& Miller, 2006; NRC, 2001). A successful way to teach conceptual understanding was

through use of the concrete-representational (pictorial)-abstract (CRA) instructional

process. Students first experienced the concept by using manipulatives, then through the

use of visuals, and finally through a mathematical equation (Hudson & Miller, 2006;

Korn, 2014; Sousa, 2008). Conceptual understanding was the foundation of math

instruction and needed to be mastered before more complex instruction took place

(Hudson & Miller, 2006; Korn, 2014; NRC, 2001).

Procedural knowledge, or fluency, was important for students to complete

mathematical equations or problem-solving with accuracy. Procedural fluency referred

to the understanding of mathematical procedures, to the ability to use the procedures

appropriately, and to the ability to use the procedures effectively (Hudson & Miller,

2006; Korn, 2014; NRC; 2001). Mercer and Pullen (2008) and Hudson and Miller (2005)

described the importance of using a procedural strategy, taught to help students

understand and utilize the step-by-step process necessary to solve many math problems

and a sequential process that helped lead students to solve problems. A procedural

strategy included action steps, easily understood, generalizable, and easy to remember.

Creating a clear, concise procedural strategy led to students performing better when
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 18

presented with lengthy math problems, as the strategy provided students with a method to

successfully approach the task (Hudson & Miller, 2006; Korn, 2014; Mercer & Pullen,

2008). Students who struggled in math benefitted from a procedural strategy, due to poor

memory, students’ difficulty attending to details, and/or passivity in problem solving

(Hudson & Miller, 2006).

Golman and Hasselbring (1997) and Hudson and Miller (2006) described

declarative knowledge as math fluency or information easily memorized (Fosnot,

Leinwand, Mark, O’Connell, & Ray-Riek, 2015; Goldman & Hasselbring, 1997; Hudson

& Miller, 2006). When learning a mathematical concept, students who struggled

required conceptual understanding and procedural knowledge before a teacher worked on

declarative knowledge (Hudson & Miller, 2006). For example, a student needed to

understand addition and the steps used to add numbers before a student memorized

simple addition facts. Instruction in declarative knowledge included flashcards,

computer-based games, and probe sheets (Fosnot et al., 2015; Hudson & Miller, 2006;

O’Connell, 2007).

Problem Solving

As stated, experts perceived problem solving as the ultimate goal of mathematical

instruction (Hudson & Miller, 2006; NCTM, 2000; Sherman et al., 2013). Teachers

needed to integrate problem solving into every aspect of mathematics instruction

(NCTM, 2014). If students were unable to problem solve, there was no purpose to

mathematics (NTCM, 2014) since the student used conceptual understanding, procedural

knowledge, and declarative knowledge to correctly solve a problem.

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 19

Without knowledge of the three domains and an ability to correctly utilize each,

the fourth domain of problem solving became difficult for a student (Hudson & Miller,

2006). Instruction in problem solving focused on transferring the students’ math skills to

the real world; a fundamental requirement in the workplace, daily life, and leisure

activities. Real world skills included use of counting money, balancing a checkbook,

record keeping, keeping score, and calculating an appropriate tip when paying at a

restaurant (Hudson & Miller, 2006; NTCM 2014; O’Connell, 2007).

A student who problem solved had the skills to follow a multistep process,

including: problem comprehension, formulation of a plan to solve, mathematical

calculation, the ability to reflect on the answer, and ability to communicate one’s results

(NCTM 2014, O’Connell 2007). Comprehension of the problem was the first step in

successfully solving a mathematical word problem. A student required reading strategies

to understand and interpret the information to formulate a plan to solve the problem

(Hyde, 2006).

A student had many different ways to plan and solve a problem, including the

four operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division), or a student could

make a visual representation of the information (O’Connell, 2007). Younger students

used manipulatives or drew pictures to solve a problem (O’Connell, 2007), as older

students used an algebraic expression or a calculator to problem solve (CCSSI, 2016).

Once a plan had been determined, the student correctly solved the mathematical equation

by using procedural knowledge and declarative knowledge (Hudson & Miller, 2006;

O’Connell, 2007). To ensure successful solving of the problem, the student reflected and
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 20

checked his or her answer (NCTM, 2014; O’Connell, 2007). A student was unable to

solve a problem, unless the solution was successfully communicated (NCTM, 2000).

Problem Solving Struggles

The U.S. struggled to increase students’ problem solving abilities, even with the

advances in technology, at the time (Jitendra, 2007; OECD, 2014) and the inclusion of

students who received special education services in the measurement of these skills.

Students frequently struggled to answer mathematical word problems because of an

inability to organize the information presented in the problem or create a plan to solve the

issue (Jitendra, 2007). With the demand of the Missouri Learning Standards or the

CCSS, mathematical word problem solving was vital to a student’s success in school and

life (Gray, PowerUp What Works, & Zorfass, 2014).

Some students used the same mathematical operation for every problem, and

always added, even when solving was a subtraction problem. Using this approach,

students may have answered the problem correctly, but did not actually utilize the correct

means to solve the problem, because the student lacked understanding (Jitendra, 2007).

In addition to always using the same operation, some students used a key-word approach

to solving mathematical word problems. For example, when a student saw the word

‘left,’ he automatically assumed that this problem was a subtraction problem (Jitendra,

2007). Some mathematical textbooks used in schools, at the time of this writing, taught

this approach during problem solving activites (Van de Wallex, Karp, & Bay-Wiliams,

2012). The key-word approach initially helped students who struggled with solving

mathematical word problems; however, as the word problems increased in complexity,

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 21

the key-word approach became less effective and more harmful for students (Groth,

2013; Jitendra, 2007).

Textbooks also frequently taught Polya’s (1945) problem-solving model. This

alternate model was a four-step process where students first comprehended the word

problem, then developed a plan, carried out the plan, and reflected. This model did not

provide students with specific steps to solve a mathematical word problem. Therefore,

the model assisted a select group of students, who received special education services,

due to its general approach (Jitendra, 2007).

Students struggled with solving mathematical word problems for different

reasons. One common reason was an inability to understand what was being asked, due

to the student’s difficulty in translating or comprehending the word problem as a

mathematical equation (Barwell, 2011; Sherman et al., 2013). Literacy issues frequently

played a role in students’ difficulty with problem solving (Barwell, 2011; Hyde, 2006).

Students lacked an understanding of mathematical words, such as difference, quotient,

and factor and struggled with the ability to read and comprehend the text of the problem

(Hyde, 2006; Sherman et al., 2013).

Reading comprehension was involved when solving mathematical word

problems, especially when the problem involved a higher level of thinking (Jitendra,

2007; Hyde, 2006). Students who struggled in reading comprehension had difficulty

when solving mathematical word problems (Jan & Rodrigues, 2012; Sherman et al.,

2013) and difficulty providing a rationale for how they computed an answer (Sherman et

al., 2013). Then-current assessments required students to provide justification for

answers and created a situation where students failed to attempt the problem, since the
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 22

students were unable to successfully show their work (Battista, Mayberry, Thompson,

Yeatts, & Zawojewski, 2005; Sherman et al., 2013).

When struggling with reading comprehension, students had difficulty discerning

the important information in a word problem. Extraneous information, symbols, or

shapes distracted or confused the student; as a result, students were unable to create a

plan to successfully solve the problem (Sherman et al., 2013). Students also had

difficulty visualizing the situation in the problem, due to limited background knowledge

or vocabulary. If a problem involved a train conductor and a student lacked knowledge

of what a train conductor did, the student had difficulty understanding the problem

(Hyde, 2006). Students also had difficulty self-checking their answers, due to a lack of

knowledge of what a reasonable answer might be to the problem; for instance, a student

may give an answer in the hundreds when the problem involved numbers in the

thousands. Students either asked the teacher if the answer was correct or simply were

satisfied they had an answer to the problem, even though it may be incorrect and

demonstrated a lack of number sense (Fosnot & Dolk, 2001; Sherman et al., 2013).

Students also displayed little motivation to solve a word problem (Hart, 1996) and

felt unconnected if unable to find meaning when reading. A student who played baseball

was more willing to answer a word problem involving baseball than badminton (Hart,

1996; Technical Education Research Center, 2008). Another issue involved time;

students may have lacked enough time to finish a problem or, if time ran out, quickly

finished the work, yet applied knowledge incorrectly. Teachers who ensured a proper

amount of time for students to work on problem solving and review work experienced

greater student success (Battista et al., 2005; Sherman et al., 2013).

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 23

Best Practices in Mathematical Problem Solving

There were many instructional best practices on mathematical problem solving

noted throughout the literature. One way to solve mathematical word problems was the

use of an instructional process referred to as CRA (The Access Center, 2009; Hong, Lim,

& Mei, 2009; Sousa, 2008). CRA was a three-part instructional process and utilized

three distinct layers of instruction to help teach specific skills and provided a sequential

process, developed to help students learn concepts through an abstract level of

understanding. In the first stage, the concrete stage, teachers used manipulatives (3-D) or

real objects to model a math concept noted as the ‘doing stage’ (The Access Center,

2009). After the teacher modeled the concrete stage, students practiced with the real

object; so, students understood the newly taught math concept or word problem.

Manipulatives or real objects included chips, blocks, an abacus, apples, and counters (The

Access Center, 2009; Hong et al., 2009). The concrete stage served as the basis for

conceptual understanding (The Access Center, 2009).

After the student mastered the concrete stage, he or she moved to the

representational stage, where the teacher used pictures, diagrams, tallies, or dots (2-D) to

help transfer what the student learned from the concrete stage to the semi-concrete stage

(representational). The student drew a picture or used some representation of the word

problem to solve; commonly referred to as the ‘seeing stage’ (The Access Center, 2009;

Hong et al., 2009). In the final level stage, ‘the abstract,’ the teacher transitioned the

student from a semi-concrete level to a symbolic level. Teachers used the operation

symbols and other mathematical symbols to teach this stage, and the student used

mathematical symbols to solve the problem. The highest level of understanding was the
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 24

abstract stage; and, if a student mastered this stage, he or she understood the concept (The

Access Center, 2009; Hong et al., 2009). Successfully moving through the CRA

instructional process was key to truly understanding a mathematical concept or word

problem (The Access Center, 2009; Hong et al., 2009; Sousa, 2008).

Solving a mathematical word problem was a sequential, step-by-step process.

The use of a checklist helped a student remember and properly move through a

mathematical word problem (O’Connell, 2007). Polya (1945), one of the first to use this

process, developed a four-step problem-solving model that guided students to a solution.

Understanding the problem was the first step for students to complete. The second step

was to develop a plan to solve the problem, and the final steps were to execute the plan

by calculating the answer and reflect about the answer, to see if one had a correct solution

(Polya, 1945). Polya’s problem-solving process provided educators with an organized

approach, when teaching mathematical word problem solving (Florida Department of

Education, 2010).

Mnemonic strategies assisted students to remember steps in problem solving,

through the use of a cue to help students remember using the first letter of the step (The

Access Center, 2006; Allsopp, Kyger, & Loving, 2007). One problem solving mnemonic

strategy, STAR, stood for “S - Search the word problem; T -Translate the words into an

equation in picture form; A - Answer the problem; and R- review the solution” (The

Access Center, 2006, para. 14). Mercer and Mercer (1993) developed a mnemonic

strategy called RIDE, similar to STAR, where each letter stood for a step in problem

solving: “R - Read the problem correctly; I - Identify the relevant information; D-

Determine the operation and unit for expressing the answer; and E - Enter the correct
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 25

numbers and calculate” (as cited in Florida Department of Education, 2010, p. 11).

Mnemonics strategies helped students solve word problems by giving them a systematic

cue to remember each step (The Access Center, 2006; Florida Department of Education,

2010).

Problem solving involved reading, and students who struggled with mathematical

problem solving benefited from instruction in reading comprehension strategies. Hyde

(2006) stated, “The math problem solving of most students by fourth grade suffers from a

profound lack of thinking and questioning” (p. 17). Hyde (2006) focused on six reading

strategies, when incorporated into mathematics instruction, helped students become better

problem solvers by asking questions, making connections, visualizing, inferring and

predicting, determining importance, and synthesizing. As stated, students needed to

understand the word problem (Polya, 1945). Therefore, teachers who included reading

comprehension strategies in math lessons led to students who comprehended and applied

knowledge to solve the problem (Franz, 2015; Hyde, 2006).

Another important part of reading was vocabulary instruction. Students who

struggled in the area of mathematics required instruction in mathematical vocabulary

(Smith & Angotti, 2012). Marzano and Pickering (2005) stated vocabulary instruction

could improve a student’s prior knowledge and understanding of academic content. The

Frayer model (1969) was a useful graphic organizer to understand mathematical

vocabulary and involved a definition, picture, example, and non-example of the word

(Dunston & Tyminski, 2013). Students also created a math dictionary to help learn

difficult math vocabulary; for example, the word volume had two meanings:
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 26

measurement in geometry and sound in the environment. Students were encouraged to

draw a picture with the definition to help increase understanding (Sherman et al., 2013).

Along with instruction in vocabulary, the use of the think-aloud strategy improved

mathematical problem solving. Teachers modeled the think-aloud strategy by verbalizing

their thought processes and reason why and how they solved the problem (Institute of

Education Services, 2012). The researchers taught students to use an inner voice to ask

questions, reflect when solving a problem, and verbalize the thought process out loud

(Barrera, Liu, & Thurman, 2009). A study completed by Barrera, Liu, and Thurman

(2009) revealed students with educational disabilities, who were learning the English

language, benefited from the use of the think-aloud.

Cooperative learning was another best practice in education, when integrated

successfully in math “provides students with opportunities to interact with one another in

ways that enhance their learning” (Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, & Stone, 2013, p. 16).

Cooperative learning helped prepare students to live and work in the 21st century, since

working in isolation did not prepare students for the future (Dean et al., 2013). Students

who struggled worked in structured cooperative learning groups to solve a problem

enjoyed being part of a team. As peers continued to share the thought process, others

benefitted and helped the group learn (Allsopp et al., 2007; Sherman et al., 2013).

Terwell (2011) stated cooperative learning and mathematics education were essential and

needed to be taught at the same time. However, there should be other instructional

strategies used in conjunction with cooperative learning to increase student achievement

(Terwell, 2011).
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 27

There were other best practices on mathematical problem solving described in the

then-current literature. The teacher considered the various, sequential dimensions of

word problems and included single and multiple calculations, extraneous and no

extraneous information, or directly stated problems and indirectly stated problems

(Hudson & Miller, 2006). When teaching one of these dimensions, a teacher

appropriately planned strategies to ensure student understanding (Hudson & Miller,

2006).

Grouping problems with the same strategy increased a student’s fluency in

utilizing the technique to problem solve successfully through repetition and helped

students transfer these skills (Sherman et al., 2013). Another way to increase student

understanding was through practice in the functional application of problem solving;

important life skills and knowledge students needed, to successfully function in the real

world. Examples included creating word problems involving money, time, and

measurement (Hudson & Miller, 2006; NCTM, 2014; O’Connell, 2007).

An additional technique, to provide successful instruction in problem solving

included stimulating student interest to increase motivation (Sherman et al., 2013,)

crucial for academic success (Forbringer & Fuchs, 2014). After giving an interest

inventory to students, a teacher generated content problems based on a student’s interest

and motivated the individual to solve the problem correctly (Sherman et al., 2013). A

teacher incorporated a motivational/reward system tied to effort, perseverance, and

outcomes with rewards, such as verbal praise, candy, and coupons (Forbringer & Fuchs,

2014).
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 28

Special Education

In 1975, Congress passed PL 94-142, Education for the Handicapped Act, which

stated every child in the U.S. who had a disability had a right to a free and appropriate

education (USDOEOSERS, 2010). The state of Missouri developed an educational

policy noted as Child Find (MODESE, 2014) and required all children with a disability

be identified by a private or public agency. Most schools had a process for the

identification of students who struggled and a discussion on possible interventions to

appropriately aid these students. This type of process occurred prior to referring students

for special education (MODESE, 2014; O’Connor, Wright, & Wright, 2015; Pacer

Center, 2015). If students were not making adequate progress after receiving research-

based interventions in an area of deficit, a special education evaluation occurred

(MODESE, 2014; O’Connor et al., 2015).

To determine if an evaluation was warranted, a team of a student’s parents, the

school psychologist, a general education teacher, a special education teacher, and any

other related service provider was created to review existing data. From the existing data,

the team determined if testing would occur in specific areas: vision, hearing,

health/motor, academics, adaptive behavior, assistive technology,

social/emotional/behavioral, and cognition (MODESE, 2014; O’Connor et al., 2015;

Pacer Center, 2015). The school psychologist evaluated the child in the areas of concern

indicated by existing data. The results of the evaluation needed to be completed and

discussed within 60 days from parent consent to evaluate, dependent upon the areas of

deficits, included observations, rating scales, cognitive assessments, and academic

assessments (MODESE, 2014; O’Connor et al., 2015). From the data gathered during the
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 29

evaluation, the team agreed upon an educational disability or disabilities from the 13

educational disability categories delineated in the IDEA (2004): autism, deaf-blindness,

deafness, emotional disturbance (ED), hearing impairment, intellectual disability,

multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment (OHI), specific

learning disability (LD), speech impairment, language impairment, traumatic brain

injury, and visual impairment (MODESE, 2014; O’Connor et al., 2015).

For students eligible for special education, the team created an IEP. The

components of an IEP included a statement of how the student’s disability related to his

or her learning, strengths identified by both school staff and parents, annual goals and/or

objectives to address learning deficits, and classroom and assessment accommodations

(Project IDEAL, 2013). Based on the learning deficits of the student, the IEP team

developed annual goals, and determined the amount of time needed to meet the goals and

an educational placement. The law required all students be educated in the least

restrictive environment (LRE) and with typically-developing peers, to the greatest extent

possible. LRE was not based upon a student’s educational disability (MODESE, 2014;

O’Connor et al., 2015).

As stated, a team of qualified individuals carefully selected an educational

diagnosis or diagnoses based upon the data gathered from the evaluation. Autism was

one of the diagnoses recognized by IDEA (MODESE, 2014). People with Autism

Spectrum Disorder had difficulties in the areas of communication, language, social skills,

and stereotyped behaviors. The spectrum ranged from classic autism, which was the

most severe, to a less severe type known as high-functioning autism (Autism Speaks,

2015). Students with classic autism typically required a higher level of support in
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 30

communicating wants and needs; a student who had high-functioning autism typically

required support in the area of social skills (Autism Speaks, 2015). The Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) approximated one in 68 people in the U.S. were

then-currently on the autism spectrum (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

[CDC], 2014, para. 1).

A medical diagnosis of autism could be received as early as infancy; early

indicators included little eye contact, minimal social responsiveness to the caregiver, no

babbling by one-year-of-age, and loss of language (Autism Speaks, 2015; Olsson, 2016).

Although there were early indicators, some people with autism were not diagnosed until

later in life. Indicators considered in making a later diagnosis included difficulty making

friends, lack of imaginative play, perseveration of certain topics/items, repetitive use of

language, and difficulty sustaining appropriate social interactions (Autism Speaks, 2015;

Olsson, 2016). At the time of this writing, Autism had no known cause, which made it

difficult to diagnose, although scientists believed both genetics and environmental factors

contributed to the likelihood of a person developing autism. Professionals treated

individuals with autism with educational interventions, behavior interventions,

medications, and other treatments, like restricting certain foods in a person’s diet (Autism

Speaks, 2015; CDC, 2016). If a person began treatment for autism early on, symptoms

were less severe (Autism Speaks, 2015; CDC, 2016a).

Students with autism had difficulty with math, because the subject required high-

cognitive functioning. Some students with autism responded to learning rote math skills,

such as number identification, counting and shape identification, while others were able

to learn money skills, calculator use, geometry, and algebra (r4 Education Solutions,
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 31

2010). Students with autism benefited from visual supports, such as manipulatives,

number lines, graphic columns, written models, highlighting important words, graphic

organizers, and number cards. Some students with autism relied on visual supports long

term (Cohen & Sloan, 2007). Students with autism were also supported by a visual

schedule with identified breaks, clear transition times, positive reinforcement, paired

verbal language with visual support, and placing a preferred activity after an a non-

preferred activity (r4 Education Solutions, 2010).

Another diagnosis recognized by IDEA was emotional disturbance (ED)

(MODESE, 2012). Students with an ED had many difficulties in school, including

regulation of internal and external behavior(s). The frequency and intensity of the

behaviors negatively lowered academic scores (Kern & Wehby, 2014). According to the

CDC (2016), between the years 2005 and 2011, 3.5% of children with an educational

diagnosis of ED had a behavior or conduct problem (para. 2).

For a student diagnosed with an educational disability of ED, he or she

demonstrated one of the following characteristics: an unexplained inability to learn,

difficulty relating to people, inappropriate behaviors during typical situations, depression,

or fears over a long period of time and to a severe degree (MODESE, 2012). Medical

diagnoses associated with an educational disability of ED were anxiety disorders,

psychotic disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, and Tourette’s

syndrome (National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, 2010).

Students with an ED benefited from a variety of positive behavior techniques,

such as utilization of behavioral contracts, frequent positive reinforcement, token

economies, breaks throughout the day, and predictable routines (Kern & Wehby, 2014).
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 32

Sometimes an individual or individuals trained in providing behavioral supports

developed a positive behavior support plan to help substitute the inappropriate behaviors

with an acceptable replacement behavior. Before implementing a positive behavior

support plan, the individual(s) conducted a functional behavior assessment and

determined the function of the inappropriate behavior (Blakely & von Ravensberg, 2014).

Determining the reason why a student executed an inappropriate behavior aided in the

selection of an appropriate replacement behavior. Experts hoped putting these supports

in place decreased the inappropriate behaviors and increased academic performance

(Blakely & von Ravensberg, 2014).

IDEA also recognized a learning disability (LD) as an educational diagnosis

(MODESE, 2014). Students with an LD, described as a neurological disorder, had

difficulty learning new skills in a traditional way. The individuals struggled in reading,

math, writing, thinking, organizing, or spelling. The National Center of Learning

Disabilities (2015) stated 4.6 million people who lived in the U.S. reported a type of LD

(p. 25). For a student diagnosed with an LD in Missouri, there must have been a

discrepancy between the student’s intellectual ability (IQ) and achievement of at least 1.5

standard deviations (MODESE, 2012, para. 3). A student was diagnosed as learning

disabled in one or more of the following areas: basic reading, reading comprehension,

listening comprehension, fluency, written expression, math calculation, math problem

solving, and oral expression. Before a diagnosis, students received research-based

interventions and an observation in the general education setting (MODESE, 2012).

Students with learning disabilities possibly struggled with accessing long and

short-term memory. Instructional supports for students who struggled with memory
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 33

deficits included the use of a problem-solving organizer, a reduction in the amount of

copying required from a textbook or board, use of mnemonic devices, and use of a

calculator, instead of memorization of math facts (r4 Education Solutions, 2010). Other

students diagnosed with an LD struggled with processing information cognitively,

auditorally, or visually and necessitated the use of nonlinguistic representations paired

with a verbal explanation, use of manipulatives to model a problem, assignments given in

chunks, preferential seating close to the teacher, and a review on important vocabulary

(r4 Education Solutions, 2010).

Interventions that helped students with an LD in mathematics included self-

regulation, direct instruction, goal-setting, and the CRA instructional process (Donaldson

& Zager, 2010; Forbringer & Fuchs, 2014). Self-regulation was the use of checklists

students completed during different math tasks (Donaldson & Zager, 2010). Direct

instruction was a systematic approach to teaching specific, identified skills through the

use of prompts and guides, and followed by a reinforcement for correct student

responses. Direct instruction focused on universally applicable strategies to solve any

mathematical problem (Donaldson & Zager, 2010; Forbringer & Fuchs, 2014). Goal

setting challenged students to set a realistic math goal for themselves before or while they

learned a skill. Students’ academic performance increased when students understood the

goal (Donaldson & Zager, 2010).

Language impairment was also an education diagnosis recognized by IDEA

(MODESE, 2012). A person with a language impairment had difficulty understanding

and/or using words in context; identified with an expressive disorder, such as difficulty
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 34

conveying ideas or a receptive disorder, such as difficulty understanding what other

people were saying (Center for Parent Information and Resources, 2015b).

A person described as educationally disabled in one or more of four areas, syntax,

semantics, morphology, and pragmatics, received the educational diagnosis of language

impairment. Syntax was the way people put words together to make a sentence,

evidenced by students who mixed-up the order of words in the sentence and left the

listener with an inability to interpret what was stated (American Speech-Language-

Hearing Association [ASHA], 2014; Clark & Kamhi, 2010). Semantics was the meaning

behind a word or sentence (ASHA, 2014). Students diagnosed in the area of semantics

had difficulty with curriculum vocabulary and often had difficulty understanding the

meaning of new terminology or the multiple meanings of one word (Clark & Kamhi,

2010).

Morphology was how word forms were put together (ASHA, 2014). Students

with a morphology diagnosis had difficulty adding suffixes correctly on the end of a word

or were unable to use an irregular verb (Clark & Kamhi, 2010). Pragmatics was the use

of language in a social context. Students diagnosed in the area of pragmatics struggled

with interacting appropriately with peers and adults (ASHA, 2014). To be diagnosed

with a language impairment in the state of Missouri, a 1.5 standard deviation existed

between the student’s language scores and the student’s IQ. The diagnostician must have

completed two different language assessments to document the student’s language

difficulties (MODESE, 2012).

IDEA (2004) also recognized an intellectual disability as an educational

diagnosis; described as a person who experienced limitations in problem-solving abilities,

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 35

communication skills, self-care skills, and/or social skills. Students with an intellectual

disability frequently learned at a slower rate than typically-developing peers (Hallahan,

2015). These students were capable of learning, but needed the concepts presented

repeatedly until mastery and had difficulty with learning complex concepts or higher

order thinking concepts (Center for Parent Information and Resources, 2015a; Hallahan,

2015). Reasons for an intellectual disability included genetic conditions, specifically

Down syndrome or problems during pregnancy, like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome,

complications at birth, or health problems, such as lead poisoning, which led to memory

deficits, an inability to solve his or her own problems, and difficulty understanding the

consequences of his or her actions (Center for Parent Information and Resources, 2015a).

For an educational diagnosis of intellectual disability in the state of Missouri, a student

possessed an IQ below two standard deviations from the mean or below 70 (MODESE,

2012, para. 1). The student also demonstrated difficulty with adaptive behaviors, such as

navigating the school building or taking care of personal belongings (MODESE, 2012).

Students with an intellectual disability benefited from task analysis, when taught

math. The teacher reduced the complexity of the math skill and developed small steps

and sequentially taught each step repeatedly until the student reached mastery (Dombeck,

Reynolds, & Zupanick, 2013; Project Ideal, 2013). Students with an intellectual

disability also benefited from a kinesthetic and visual approach, as both involved a

concrete level to teach concepts (Dombeck et al., 2013). Repeat, review, and drill was

another strategy, when teaching students diagnosed with an intellectual disability, as this

process provided students with the needed repetition and practice to internalize the

concept (Dombeck et al., 2013).

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 36

An educational diagnosis of Other Health Impairment (OHI) interfered with a

student’s educational progress. The state of Missouri required a medical diagnosis with

documented evidence the health impairment limited a student’s strength, vitality, or

alertness (MODESE, 2012). Common health impairments included attention deficit

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), diabetes, epilepsy, seizures, and leukemia (National

Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, 2012).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Health Resources and

Services Administration’s (2011) report stated that 11% of children between the ages of

four and 17 years were diagnosed with ADHD (para. 4) compared to 7.8% in 2003 (para.

3). Students with ADHD were distracted, impulsive, and/or had an excessive amount of

body movement during the school day. The inability to focus on the instruction resulted

in a decrease in students’ educational performance (National Institute of Mental Health,

2016).

Specialized Instruction in Math

In 2004, President Bush reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Act

(IDEA); focused on the importance of scientifically-based or research-based instructional

practices and reinforced the practice of, “ implementing professional development,

instructional strategies, and methods of instruction that are based on scientifically based

research” (Individuals with Disabilities Act [IDEA], 2004, 118 STAT. 2734). Following

the reauthorization of IDEA (2004), many state leaders initiated the CCSS; described as a

set of standards on what each student should know from Kindergarten through12th grade

in mathematics and English Language Arts (Coleman, Gallagher, & Kirk, 2015). The

team of professionals who created the CCSS stressed the importance of professional
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 37

educators delivering evidence-based, individualized instruction (Coleman et al., 2015;

CCSSI, 2016).

Specialized instruction in mathematics required an emphasis on computation

skills, conceptual understanding, and problem solving through the use of direct, research-

based based instructional strategies (Forbringer & Fuchs, 2014; Graham, Harris, &

Swanson, 2013). Before implementing a specialized math program, a special educator

identified the problem using formative and summative assessment data (Forbringer &

Fuchs, 2014). Once the special educator identified the deficit, he or she developed an

instructional plan targeted on the deficit of the student (Hagaman, Lienemann, & Reid,

2013). To remediate the deficit, the educator carefully selected a research-based

instructional strategy tied directly to the area of deficit (Hagaman et al., 2013). While the

special education teacher instructed the student using the strategy, the special educator

monitored progress by using a curriculum-based measurement or a progress-monitoring

tool to ensure the instruction produced a positive academic result (Forbringer & Fuchs,

2014; Graham et al., 2013).

As required by the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004, a special educator utilized

research-based instructional strategies (IDEA, 2004). As discussed earlier in this

literature review, the CRA instructional process, mnemonics strategies, reading

comprehension strategies, vocabulary instruction, think-aloud strategy, and cooperative

learning were research-based instructional strategies a special educator could select to

remediate a student’s mathematical deficit (The Access Center, 2006; Dean et al., 2013;

Franz, 2015; Hong et al., 2009; Institute of Education Services, 2012; Marzano &

Pickering, 2005).
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 38

Schema-Based Instruction

In 1952, Piaget constructed a cognitive theory of how children and adults

understood the world around them. One specific component was a schema Piaget

described as “a cohesive, repeatable action sequence possessing component actions that

are tightly interconnected and governed by a core meaning” (as cited in McLeod, 2015,

para. 14). Schemas were a way to organize and process incoming information in the

brain. As a child or adult experienced new information, new processes were modified or

added to schemas already constructed in the brain (Huitt & Hummel, 2003; McLeod,

2015). Therefore, with new information, a child or an adult changed the way he or she

reacted to a situation. Jitendra (2007) developed schema-based instruction for students to

organize the information from a mathematical word problem, to provide strategy to

successfully solve it. Schema-based instruction was described as research-based by

numerous researchers (Adams et al., 2007; Church et al., 2013; Deatline-Buchmann,

Jitendra & Xin, 2005; Fang, Hartsell, Herron, Mohn, & Zhou, 2015; Fede, Pierce,

Matthews, & Wells, 2013; Griffin & Jitendra, 2009; Jitendra et al., 2002; Jitendra et al.,

1998; Jitendra et al., 2010; Jitendra & Hoff, 1996; Rockwell et al., 2011).

Schema-based instruction helped students see the whole picture by integrating the

use of diagrams or schemas with reading comprehension strategies and mathematical

problem-solving strategies (Church et al., 2013; Jitendra, 2007). The approach

concentrated on building students’ conceptual and procedural understanding through the

use of a step-by-step strategy reinforced with visual representations (Fang et al., 2015;

Jitendra, 2007). After reading and retelling the math word problem, students selected an

appropriate schematic diagram, change, compare, or group problems (Fang et al., 2015;
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 39

Jitendra, 2007; Jitendra & Star, 2011). The instructor encouraged students to fully

understand the problem before attempting to solve it (Fang et al., 2015; Jitendra, 2007;

Jitendra & Star, 2011) and taught reading comprehension strategies, such as

summarizing, retelling, reading aloud, and asking clarifying questions (Fang et al., 2015;

Jitendra, 2007).

Students used a checklist when introduced to schema-based instruction. The

checklist included the procedural strategy of FOPS: “F - Find the problem type, O -

Organize the information in the problem using the diagram, P - Plan to solve the problem,

and S - Solve the problem” (Jitendra, 2007, p. 21). The representational strategy of

FOPS was a useful tool for educators to teach; so, students self-regulated and ensured the

steps were followed correctly to solve the problem (Jitendra, 2007; Jitendra et al., 2010).

The student needed to identify the problem type, compare, group, or change. To do this,

the student read the word problem and asked him or herself, ‘What type of problem is

this?’ In the organize step, the students needed to organize the information into the

appropriate diagram and place the known information into the diagram, as well as to

mark unknown information (Jitendra, 2007; Jitendra et al., 2010). In the plan step, the

students solved the word problem by finding the total amount of the word problem and

marking it with a letter, T. The student determined if the problem needed addition or

subtraction, using this rule (Jitendra, 2007; Jitendra et al., 2010). To solve the problem,

the student performed the correct operation, checked to ensure the answer made sense,

and recorded the answer (Jitendra, 2007; Jitendra et al., 2010). By using this strategy,

students established a successful routine to problem solve correctly, which ensured the

student followed the correct procedure (Jitendra, 2007; Jitendra et al., 2002; Jitendra et
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 40

al., 2010). If a student made a mistake, teachers performed an analysis and determined

the type of error or where in the FOPS checklist the student required further assistance

(Griffin & Jitendra, 2009; Jitendra, 2007). The teacher addressed the error with

additional remediated instruction (Griffin & Jitendra, 2009; Jitendra, 2007). The

checklist provided necessary scaffolding to ensure student success, for those who

struggled in math (Griffin & Jitendra, 2009; Jitendra, 2007; Jitendra et al., 2010).

Schematic diagrams were an important part of schema-based instruction and

helped students organize the information to make sense of the word problem; similar to

the use of a graphic organizer during the writing process. Schematic diagrams assisted

the student to find the correct solution through the use of three different types of

schematic diagrams for addition and subtraction, change, compare, and group (Adams et

al., 2007; Church et al., 2013; Deatline-Buchmann et al., 2005; Griffin & Jitendra, 2009;

Jitendra et al., 2002; Jitendra et al., 1998; Jitendra et al., 2010; Jitendra & Hoff, 1996;

Rockwell et al., 2011). For instance, when the students solved a change problem,

students determined if the problem ended with more or less than the original amount

(Church et al., 2013; Jitendra et al., 2002; Jitendra, 2007). If the answer had more than

the original amount, the total was revealed; if the answer had less than the original

amount, then the starting amount was the total (Church et al., 2013; Jitendra et al., 2002;

Jitendra, 2007). Change problems focused on one variable over a period of time (Church

et al., 2013; Jitendra, 2007; Jitendra et al., 2002).

The part-part-whole concept included a process of solving group problems by

combining two separate groups into one new group, with the largest number always the

total, because the two smaller numbers made up the larger number (Jitendra, 2007;
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 41

Jitendra et al., 2002; Jitendra et al., 2010). Group problems did not occur over a period of

time (Church et al., 2013; Jitendra, 2007; Jitendra et al., 2002).

The compare schematic diagram showed the relationship between two numbers

and included two distinct sets, called the compared and referent (Jitendra, 2007; Jitendra

& Hoff, 1996; Jitendra et al., 2010). The problem stressed the relationship between the

compared and referent. When solving, the student decided if the compared set was the

biggest value (Jitendra, 2007; Jitendra et al., 2010; Jitendra & Hoff, 1996).

In all the problem types, one rule always applied on the use of addition or

subtraction (Fang et al., 2015; Jitendra, 2007). If the total was unknown, the problem

required addition to solve. If the total was known, the problem required subtraction

(Fang et al., 2015; Jitendra, 2007).

An important component of schema-based instruction was to fade or to remove

the supports, such as the checklist and diagrams, as students showed proficiency using

the strategy. To help students develop proficiency, students only learned one problem

type at a time (Church et al., 2013; Jitendra et al., 2002; Jitendra et al., 2010). As the

student showed mastery with one type, another type emerged. After each session,

students completed word problem tests and informed the teacher whether the student

mastered the problem type, a form of progress monitoring (Church et al., 2013; Jitendra

et al., 2002; Jitendra et al., 2010).

Jitendra’s (2007) schema-based instructional program incorporated progress

monitoring or small word problem assessments, based on one specific schematic diagram

similar to the previously mentioned studies. The teacher examined the students’

completed assessments for common errors, such as trouble following the strategy steps,
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 42

using the diagrams, selecting the correct operation, or following the checklist (Church et

al., 2013; Jitendra et al., 2002; Jitendra et al., 2010). Once the teacher identified the

error, the students who needed additional remediated instruction addressed mistakes and

received remediation before any new information was introduced (Church et al., 2013;

Jitendra et al., 2002; Jitendra et al., 2010).

As students demonstrated accuracy and proficiency in all problem types,

assessments included all problem types mixed together (Church et al., 2013; Jitendra et

al., 2002; Jitendra et al., 2010). Jitendra’s (2007) schema-based instructional program

incorporated assessments with all problem types mixed together, along with introduction

of two-step word problems. Assessments demonstrated how the students maintained or

generalized the skills taught for each type of problem (Church et al., 2013; Jitendra et al.,

2002; Jitendra et al., 2010).

Research studies between 1996 and 2015 indicated positive results of schema-

based instruction with students who struggled in the area of mathematical problem

solving. The majority of research participants were students who received special

education services (Adams et al., 2007; Church et al., 2013; Deatline-Buchmann et al.,

2005; Fede et al.., 2013; Griffin & Jitendra, 2009; Jitendra et al., 2002; Jitendra et al.,

1998; Jitendra et al., 2010; Jitendra & Hoff, 1996; Rockwell et al., 2011). The students in

the studies spent the majority of the day in the general education environment and

received specialized instruction in math for a part of the day. The educational disabilities

of the students studied included learning disabilities, ED, and autism (Adams et al., 2007;

Deatline-Buchmann et al., 2005; Fede et al., 2013; Griffin & Jitendra, 2009; Jitendra et
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 43

al., 2002; Jitendra et al., 1998; Jitendra et al., 2010; Jitendra & Hoff, 1996Rockwell et al.,

2011).

In the 2013 study conducted by Church et al., the researchers compared the

academic outcomes of schema-based instruction to the academic outcomes of a

standards-based mathematical curriculum. The results of this study demonstrated a

student who entered the study with higher scores in problem solving performed better

using schema-based instruction than student who entered the study with lower scores in

problem solving (Church et al., 2013). Previous studies also included students in the

general education environment who demonstrated positive results using schema-based

instruction (Adams et al., 2007; Church et al., 2013; Deatline-Buchmann et al., 2005;

Fang et al., 2015; Fede et al., 2013; Jitendra et al., 1998).

While the complexity of mathematical word problems increased as students

progressed through school (CCSSI, 2016), previous studies from 1996 to 2015 also

demonstrated schema-based instruction yielded positive results for students ranging from

second to eighth grades (Adams et al., 2007; Church et al., 2013; Deatline-Buchmann et

al., 2005; Fang et al., 2015; Fede et al., 2013; Griffin & Jitendra, 2009; Jitendra et al.,

2002; Jitendra et al., 1998; Jitendra et al., 2010; Jitendra & Hoff, 1996; Rockwell et al.,

2011). The intent of schema-based instruction was for use in upper elementary to middle

school (Jitendra, 2007).

One study conducted by Fang, Hartsell, Herron, Mohn, and Zhou (2015)

concentrated on improving the mathematical problem-solving skills of second grade

students using a simplified schema-based instruction approach and one-step addition and

subtraction word problems (Fang et al., 2015). The simplified schema-based instruction
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 44

shortened the schema-based instruction approach by not utilizing the FOPS checklist, and

students did not identify the problem type, but had to rearrange the numbers of the word

problem into one schema to solve for both operations (Fang et al., 2015). The simplified

schema-based instruction yielded positive results for the participants and demonstrated

that students were able to maintain the skills taught (Fang et al., 2015).

Three of the previous schema-based instruction studies compared schema-based

instruction to a general-strategy instruction normally presented in mathematical textbooks

(Adams et al., 2007; Church et al., 2013; Deatline-Buchmann et al., 2005). The study

conducted by Deatline-Buchmann, Jitendra, and Xin (2005) yielded positive results for

the schema-based instruction over the general-strategy instruction. Both schema-based

instruction and the general-strategy instruction included reading the mathematical word

problem for understanding and checking an answer to ensure accuracy (Deatline-

Buchmann et al., 2005). However, the schema-based instruction emphasized identifying

the problem type using a schematic diagram, while the general-strategy instruction

focused on drawing a picture to solve (Deatline-Buchmann et al., 2005).

The study conducted by Adams et al. (2007) compared the outcomes of schema-

based instruction and a general-strategy instruction. The general-strategy instruction

included strategies generally found in a textbook, such as drawing a diagram, using data

from a graph, using concrete objects, and writing a number sentence with results that

favored schema-based instruction in improving a student’s mathematical word problem-

solving skills over the general-strategy instruction (Adams et al., 2007). The researchers

discussed the benefit of schema-based instruction as a student’s ability to find the

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 45

underlying meaning of the problem, rather than simply applying a strategy (Adams et al.,

2007).

Another study conducted by Church et al. in 2013 also compared schema-based

instruction to a general-strategy instruction in a standard-based curriculum approach,

which resulted in mixed positive results for schema-based instruction. Students who

scored higher on the pre-test benefited at a higher rate with the schema-based instruction;

whereas students who scored lower on the pre-test benefited higher from the general-

strategy instruction normally presented in a standards-based curriculum (Church et al.,

2013). Both studies supported the use of schema-based instruction on improving

mathematical problem solving of students (Church et al., 2013; Deatline-Buchmann et

al., 2005).

Summary

This literature review provided then-current research on the use of schema-based

instruction with students identified with an educational disability, specifically proficiency

in mathematics and best practice(s) in mathematical problem solving. The researcher

provided an explanation of schema-based instruction, along with description of studies

that reinforced schema-based instruction as beneficial to students who struggled in the

area of mathematical problem solving (Adams et al., 2007; Church et al., 2013; Deatline-

Buchmann et al., 2005; Fede et al., 2013; Griffin & Jitendra, 2009; Jitendra et al., 2002;

Jitendra et al., 1998; Jitendra et al., 2010; Jitendra & Hoff, 1996: Rockwell et al., 2011).

An overview of the special education process and educational disabilities, along with best

practice to meet the needs of students with a disability was also discussed. Chapter Three
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 46

depicts the methodology used in this study, while Chapter Four describes the results. A

dialogue and recommendations for future research are included in Chapter Five.
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 47

Chapter Three: Methodology

Overview

The intent of this study was to measure student achievement of schema-based

instruction on mathematical problem-solving skills for students in grades three through

eight, who were identified with an educational disability. This project utilized a mixed-

methodology, similar to Jitendra’s (2007) educational program titled, Solving Math Word

Problems: Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities Using Schema-Based

Instruction. A pre and post-assessment, along with M-CAP benchmark scores

determined student achievement. Special education teachers were interviewed to gain

perceptions on the implementation and their perception of a schema-based instructional

program. Student participants responded to surveys on this specific type of instruction to

allow the researcher to gain their perception of the schema-based instructional program.

The researcher also administered surveys to general education teachers to gain their

perception of the schema-based instructional program, along with their perception of

student achievement following utilization of this type of instruction.

Problem Statement

The sample size of 21 students, who received special education services, was

larger than previous studies on the use of schema-based instruction with students

diagnosed with an educational disability. Six-out-of-the-seven studies had a sample size

ranging from one to four students (Alter et al., 2011; Griffin & Jitendra, 2009; Jitendra et

al., 1998; Jitendra et al., 2002; Jitendra et al., 2010; Jitendra & Hoff, 1996; Rockwell et

al., 2011). Jitendra et al. (1998) completed a study on schema-based instruction with a

sample size of 34 students, who were at-risk or displayed a mild disability (Alter et al.,
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 48

2011; Griffin & Jitendra, 2009; Jitendra et al, 1998; Jitendra et al., 2002; Jitendra et al.,

2010; Jitendra & Hoff, 1996; Rockwell et al., 2011).

Context Description

This study was conducted in a public school district in the Midwest with an

enrollment of approximately 5,500 K-12 students (MODESE, 2013, p. 1), and 47.2% of

the district qualified for free-and-reduced lunch (MODESE, 2013, p. 2). The study

context included two elementary buildings (K-5) and one middle school (6-8) in special

education classrooms, with students diagnosed with an educational disability. The

incident rate in the researched school district was 16.41% (MODESE, 2013, para. 8474),

compared to a state average of 12.59% (MODESE, 2013, para. 8588). In the 2013-2014

academic year, there were 913 students identified with an educational disability in the

researched school district (MODESE, 2013, para. 8474).

Participant Description

The study participant recruitment occurred during the 2013-2014 school year,

during an informational meeting in which all components of the study, specifically the

purpose, requirements, and how to identify student participants, were discussed with

teachers. Thirty-two special education teachers attended the first informational meeting

at one elementary school. Four special education teachers signed a consent form to

participate in the study; two special education teachers implemented the program with

students, and two special education teachers who previously implemented schema-based

instruction, at the time of the study had no students who met the criteria to participate.

The researcher held a second informational meeting at a middle school, following the

same agenda. Five special education teachers attended this meeting, and two additional
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 49

special education teachers signed consent forms. Both of these special education teachers

had students who met criteria to participate in this study.

Two special education teacher participants taught in one elementary school, and

two special education teacher participants taught in one middle school. Both teachers in

the elementary school held special education certification (K-12) and elementary

education (1-6). The teachers in the middle school were the primary mathematics

instructors for the students who participated in the study (see Table 1). Both middle

school teachers had special education certification (K-12) and mathematics certification

(5-9).

Table 1
Special Education Teacher Demographics
Elementary Middle (6-8) Taught Taught Primary
(3-5) Program in Program in Mathematics
12-13 School 13-14 School Teacher
Year Year
ST1 X X X

ST2 X X X

ST3 X X

ST4 X X

ST5 X X

ST6 X X

The general education teachers who served as the primary mathematics instructors

for the elementary students received an e-mail explaining the components of the study,

along with a consent-to-participate form attached. All student participants received

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 50

instruction during special education services in a special education setting. All settings

provided a small group, ranging from two to eight students.

Student Participants

All student participants were previously identified with an educational disability

or disabilities. The researcher took precautions to ensure the students’ identities and all

material collected for the purpose of this study were confidential and anonymous, due to

the sensitive nature of the students’ disability identification. Students were assigned

pseudonym names during the study. The pre and post-assessment and benchmark data

remained confidential, and student names were removed. In addition, the school district

and specific schools used in this study remained anonymous to ensure anonymity of the

student participants.

To select students for the addition and subtraction portion of the program, the

special education teachers received the following description, from Jitendra (2007):

The addition and subtraction word-problem solving lessons [were] designed

for third graders, but [could] be used with second graders by modifying the

difficulty level of the language and computation skills. In addition, the

lessons can be used with older children who have experienced consistent

difficulties in solving addition and subtraction word problem. (p. xiii)

For the purpose of this study, all student participants had an educational diagnosis

of disability verified by the students’ eligibility reports (see Table 2). Students completed

the pre-assessment with ten mathematical word problems with three different schemas:

change, group, and compare. Based on the professional opinion of special education

teachers, who previously implemented this program, students who scored 70% or less on
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 51

the pre-assessment were appropriate for the study (T. Hilgenbrink & P. McConnell,

personal communication, May 16, 2013). Each participant required parent permission.

For each student who scored below 70% on the pre-assessment and before students

participated in the survey, the researcher received 19 signed parent permission forms.

Two additional students’ pre and post-assessment data and M-CAP benchmark scores

were also included in the study, since parent permission was only needed for students to

participate in the survey. The district gave permission for use of scores as secondary

data. However, two students were unable to participate in the surveys, since no

permission form was completed and returned.

Table 2
Number of Students by Disability
Disability Number of Students
Autism 12
Emotional Disturbance 1
Learning Disability 4
Intellectual Disability 2
Speech Impairment 3
Language Impairment 2
Other Health Impairment 2

Research Questions

RQ1: How do special education teachers perceive the implementation of schema-

based instruction?

RQ2: How do special education teachers perceive schema-based instruction and

student achievement?

RQ3: How do general education teachers perceive schema-based instruction and

student achievement?
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 52

Hypotheses

NH1: There is no increase in mathematical problem solving skills of students with

an educational diagnosis through the use of schema-based instruction, as measured by a

pre-to-post assessment.

NH2: There is no increase in AIMSweb Math Concepts and Application (M-

CAP) benchmark scores of students with an educational diagnosis through the use of

schema-based instruction.

NH3: Students will negatively perceive the schema-based instruction, as

measured by a Likert-scale survey.

Procedure for Data Collection

During the 2013-2014 school year, the special education teachers implemented

the program, Solving Math Word Problems: Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities

Using Schema-Based instruction, by Jitendra (2007). Teachers administered the pre-

assessment to students who received specialized instruction in the area of mathematical

problem solving. Students who scored 70% or lower became the potential participants

for this study. Parent consent for this instructional approach to mathematics was not

necessary at this time, because the program was already under implementation in the

school setting and was not implemented solely for purposes of this research study.

Next, teachers began implementation of the schema-based instructional program

with strategies applied an average of three times a week. To ensure fidelity of the

program, the researcher created a fidelity checklist concentrated on the important

instructional components. The researcher and an administrator observed the four special

education teachers, separately, one time, for a 40-minute class period.

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 53

Upon completion of the 21 lessons of the addition and subtraction problems, or

the end of the school year, the researcher obtained a copy of the secondary data from

teachers, including pre-assessment and post-assessment data, along with the AIMSweb

M-CAP benchmark data for each student. One special education teacher did not

complete the 21 lessons of addition and subtraction, because her students were unable to

master the ‘compare’ schematic diagrams within the 2013-2014 school year.

The researcher or an administrator interviewed the special education teachers who

implemented the schema-based program. Students who participated in the study

completed the survey to determine individual perceptions on the use of schema-based

instruction. General education teachers who had a student in his or her classroom and

who participated in the study were also surveyed.

Finally, the researcher organized the quantitative data by creating a spreadsheet.

For the pre and post-assessments, the researcher created columns for the scores of the

pre-assessments, post-assessments, and a column to display growth using the difference

between the two assessment scores. Once this data was compiled, the researcher sorted

the data by grade spans for grades three through five and grades six through eight, to

analyze null hypotheses one and two. The researcher also disaggregated the data by

disability category to further analyze null hypotheses one and two. The researcher

organized the survey data by creating a scale of 1to 3 for the student survey, in order to

analyze null hypothesis three, and by creating a scale of 1 to 5 for the general education

teacher survey in order to assist in analyzing research question three. The researcher

placed the participant’s responses on the spreadsheet, using the scale from the survey.

The researcher created a table to depict the percentages of each response, by question.
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 54

The researcher also organized the qualitative data. Each interview was scribed, then

coded and analyzed to identify common themes across all responses.

Instrumentation

Scripted lessons and pre and post-assessment. The scripted lessons and pre

and post-assessments previously developed by Jitendra (2007) were a published

component of her program titled, Solving Math Word Problems: Teaching Students with

Learning Disabilities Using Schema-Based Instruction. Each scripted lesson included

addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division problems (Jitendra, 2007). The three

addition and subtraction schematic diagrams of change, group, and compare were taught

individually, until students reached mastery as defined by successful completion of three

mathematical word problems using the corresponding schematic diagram. This program,

included scripted teacher directions with a display of ideal student responses. Jitendra

(2007) described the scripted lesson as a model that should not be read verbatim. The

program included one pre-assessment before the intervention began and a post-

assessment after the intervention had ended. Each assessment had ten questions with

either the addition or subtraction schematic diagrams. Since the pre and post-assessments

were not norm-referenced, students utilized their testing accommodations (e.g., extended

time, multiple sessions), as stated in their individual IEPs.

Math concepts and applications. AIMSweb M-CAP scores were also used for

the assessment of students’ problem solving skills in second through eighth grades. The

assessment was administered in eight-minute increments and within a small group

setting. M-CAP assessed problem-solving skills in the following domains for grades

three through eight: number sense, number and operations, patterns and relationships,
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 55

measurement, geometry, and data and probability. The assessment was administered

three times a year in August 2013, January 2014, and May 2014. Since the M-CAP

assessment was norm-referenced, students were unable to utilize their accommodations

found in their IEPs. Mathematics teachers and experts in the U.S. reviewed M-CAP for

content validity. Inter-rater reliability and alternate-form reliability were used when

developing the M-CAP probes (Pearson, 2012).

Special education teacher interview. The special education teachers who

implemented the schema-based instruction program were interviewed to gain their

perception of the effectiveness and implementation of the program (see Appendix A).

Surveys. The general education teachers were surveyed to gain perceptions on

schema-based instruction and student achievement related to this instruction. The survey

included three Likert-scale questions, with responses ranging from ‘none’ to ‘always’ to

the following prompts: ‘my students used the schema-based strategy when solving

mathematical word problems,’ ‘the schema-based strategy helped my students solve

mathematical word problems,’ and ‘my student(s) is more confident when solving

mathematical word problems now compared to the beginning of the school year’ (see

Appendix B).

Students were surveyed to gain perceptions of schema-based instruction. The

Likert-scale survey consisted of five survey questions on a Likert scale, with responses

ranging from ‘none’ to ‘always’ on the following prompts: ‘the diagrams helped me solve

word problems,’ ‘the FOPS checklist helped me solve word problems,’ ‘change problems

are easy for me to solve,’ ‘group problems are easy for me to solve,’ and ‘compare

problems are easy for me to solve.’ Students in grades three through five had a picture
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 56

response to eliminate reading, while students in grades six through eight had a word

response (see Appendix C). Students were able to utilize their accommodations, as stated

in their IEPs.

Data Analysis

Statistical analysis occurred on the following data: the pre and post-assessment,

along with the M-CAP benchmark scores. The researcher conducted a t-test to find

potential differences in means between the assessments and to answer null hypotheses

one and two. A Chi Square, test along with a t-test were performed to find potential

differences in means when analyzing the pre and post-assessment disaggregated data.

The disaggregated data gathered from grades three through five-5 and grades six through

eight, assisted the researcher in the analysis for null hypotheses one and two. Data was

also disaggregated by each disability category, in order to help answer null hypotheses

one and two.

For the survey data, a t-test was performed when finding a potential difference in

means for responses to each question on the student survey. The t-test was an appropriate

analysis due to the nineteen responses in each sample. A Chi-Square test along with a t-

test was performed when finding a potential difference for each question on the general

education teacher survey. A Chi-Square test along with a t-test was performed due to

only four participant responses in the sample data.

When analyzing the qualitative data, the interviews were coded and analyzed, seeking

common themes across all responses. The researcher created a pre-list of codes, based on

the research questions. As the researcher analyzed the data, some codes were created to

accurately depict the teachers’ responses to each interview question. As the data were
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 57

coded, the researcher wrote down ideas and connections to each research question.

Coding the data assisted the researcher to develop common themes across all responses.

Summary

This study examined the use of schema-based instruction with students with an

educational disability in grades three through eight in three different schools, within one

single school district. The researcher collected and analyzed multiple sources of data,

quantitative and qualitative, to measure student outcomes and student and teacher

perceptions on the use of schema-based instruction. The researcher analyzed the data

using a t-test for difference in means, descriptive statistics, and common themes from

qualitative data and reported the results in Chapter Four. Chapter Five discusses the

researcher’s interpretation of the data along with recommendations for future studies.
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 58

Chapter Four: Results

Overview

This study investigated the achievement of students in grades three through eight,

who were previously identified with an educational disability, using schema-based

instruction on mathematical problem-solving skills. The researcher also explored the

perceptions of special education teachers, general education teachers, and students on the

schema-based instructional program in a Midwest school district. This chapter contains

the results of the data analysis, which helped to answer the research questions and null

hypotheses developed by the researcher. The data collected included pre and post-

assessment data, transcribed special education interview responses, student survey

responses, and general education teacher survey responses.

Research Questions

RQ1: How do special education teachers perceive the implementation of schema-

based instruction?

RQ2: How do special education teachers perceive schema-based instruction and

student achievement?

RQ3: How do general education teachers perceive schema-based instruction and

student achievement?

Hypotheses

NH1: There is no increase in mathematical problem solving skills of students with

an educational diagnosis through the use of schema-based instruction, as measured by a

pre-to-post assessment.
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 59

NH2: There is no increase in AIMSweb Math Concepts and Application (M-

CAP) benchmark scores of students with an educational diagnosis through the use of

schema-based instruction.

NH3: Students will negatively perceive the schema-based instruction, as

measured by a Likert-scale survey.

Qualitative Data

The researcher transcribed the interview responses provided by the special

education teachers and coded the transcripts to determine common themes. Five themes

and sub-themes emerged from analyzing the data: organization, routines and structures,

language, individualization, and generalization. The researcher found a total of seven

common themes related to each research question (see Table 3).

Table 3

Emerging Themes by Research Question

Themes RQ1 RQ2
Organization x x
Routine/Structure x
Language x x
Individualization x
Generalization x

The researcher analyzed the data generated by the Likert-scale survey by using

descriptive statistics for each question from the general education teacher survey, along

with the percentage of selection for each category (see Table 4).
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 60

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics of General Education Teacher Surveys

GE Teacher Survey Question Average

1 1.75
2 1.75
3 2.25

Emerging Theme - Organization

Organization was a common theme in responses from five out of the six

respondents. The researcher coded data with a letter, O, for organization when the

interviewee mentioned the following words and/or descriptions: organize, plan, setup,

and accessible. Two sub-themes of organization emerged: teacher organization and

student organization. The researcher identified the sub-theme of teacher organization

when the interviewee discussed how the materials were organized or easily accessible.

The sub-theme of student organization emerged when the interviewee discussed how the

materials helped the students organize the information to solve the word problem.

Three special education teachers discussed how the materials of schema-based

instruction were organized. Participant ST5 described how two main parts of addition or

subtraction and multiplication or division separated the program, ‘Each part followed the

same pattern of introducing the problem type one at a time and then combining all the

problem types toward the last few lessons.’ Participants ST5 and ST6 described how

each lesson included a script informing the teacher what to say and how each lesson

contained a material list. Participant ST6 also stated each lesson had answers to

completed problems for the students. Participant ST2 noted how the checklists helped to

organize the information and stated, ‘I like it [program], but I’m also a checklist person.

I like the boxes like that.’ Participant ST2 also stated, ‘I think for some of the kids the
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 61

organization helped. . . . They would use pieces from it [FOPS checklist].’ All three of

the special education teachers mentioned in the interview that the program was

organized.

Five out of six special education teachers noted how the schema-based

instructional program helped students organize information to solve a mathematical word

problem. The responses in Table 5 list how students organized information to solve a

mathematical word problem.

Table 5
Interview Responses Related to Students Organizing Information
Special
Education
Question Teacher
No. No. Interview Responses
He was able to organize the information without looking
6 2 at all the parts of it.
… and knowing how to setup the problem and knowing
6 3 what was being asked.
I think it helped the kids to learn how to attack a word
6 4 problem.
For some students, it may be helpful for setting up basic
6 5 addition and subtraction word problems.
Students learned how to organize the information/numbers
6 6 from the math problems.

The special education teachers referred to organization for schema diagrams and

the FOPS checklist. The interview responses in Table 6 focused on organization when

the special education teachers discussed the schema diagrams and FOPS checklist.
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 62

Table 6

Interview Responses Related to Organization Using Diagrams and Checklist

Special
Education
Teacher
No. Interview Responses
‘I think the diagrams were effective for a way to organize the
2 material.'
‘That [FOPS checklist] seemed to help because they were putting in
the operations, key words, vocabulary, and details that were needed
3 for the problem solving.'
4 ‘I think the effectiveness of the diagrams lies in how they are setup.'
‘[diagrams] provide a consistent visual to use when organizing
5 information in a problem.'
‘The FOPS is a consistent way to teach students to approach a
6 problem.'

Emerging Theme – Routines or Structure

Another common theme in the special education teacher interview responses was

routine or structure. The researcher coded with a letter, R, for routine when the

interviewee mentioned the following words and/or descriptions: routines, structure,

repetition, step-by-step, and sequential. Three out of the six special education teachers

discussed how routine and/or structure were a key component of this program.

Table 7

Interview Responses Related to Routine and/or Structure

Special
Education
Question Teacher
No. No. Interview Responses
‘Probably the diagrams, checklists, routines, structure of
1 1 it.'
‘I have seen through the repetition and routine that they
have improved over the course of time in that area
1 3 [explaining their answer] in particular.'
1 4 ‘I think the fact that it is sequential…'
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 63

Table 7 provides participant responses to the characteristics of routine and

structure of the key components of the program. Two special education teachers

described how routine was important in the implementation process. Participant ST1

discussed how one must go step-by-step through the program by reading what is in the

script and stated, ‘[The program] started out by going step-by-step through the book.

Participant ST1 also stated positive comments related to having a script to follow and the

structure of the program; ‘I really like knowing what to say and the structure of it [the

program].’ Participant ST2 described the implementation process by the program as

needing lots of repetition; ‘[The program] needs a lot of repetition and the checklists.’

Emerging Theme - Language

Language emerged as another common theme in the responses of the special

education teachers. The researcher coded with a letter, L, for language when the

interviewee mentioned the following words and/or descriptions: language and wordy.

Two sub-themes emerged during the coding process: low language and the wordiness of

the program. The sub-theme for low language included how the script and/or materials

were too difficult for students with low language skills. The sub-theme for the wordiness

of the program included how special education teachers perceived the script and/or

materials as too wordy for students.

Two special education teachers noted the sub-theme of low language. Participant

ST5 described the language and the materials (schema diagrams and FOPS checklist) as

confusing for students; ‘The language [of the program] becomes confusing for students

with learning/language difficulties.’ Participant ST5 also stated, ‘Some of the steps [in

the FOPS checklists] were unclear for students with learning/language issues,’ and ‘Some
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 64

students with language weaknesses have difficulty understanding the parts of the

[schema] diagrams.’ Participant ST6 also described how the program was difficult for

students who have language concerns, when questioned about the overall effectiveness of

the program and stated, ‘Low language kids tend to struggle with the wordiness [of the

program].’

Three out of the six special education teachers referred to the sub-theme of the

wordiness of the program. The three special education teachers described the

ineffectiveness of the program, related to the wordiness of the materials/script (see Table

8).

Table 8

Interview Responses Related to Wordiness of the Program

Special
Education
Question Teacher
No. No. Interview Responses
‘The students were able to tell the correct problem type,
but were not able to think through some of the language
4 4 to put the numbers in the correct diagram.'
‘Ineffectiveness was that it [the FOPS checklist] was
5 4 rather wordy.'
‘The [FOPS] checklist had too many steps to follow. It
5 5 was wordy for students with reading problems.'
‘There were a lot of words with FOPS and it made it
5 6 difficult for the kids to follow it.'
‘Some of the examples were not relevant. A lot of my
kids didn’t know what blossoms on the rose bush was.
Some of the question types need to have real world
6 4 examples or fourth grade friendly.'
‘And I also thought the verbatim dialogue was too
6 4 wordy. I paraphrased most of what the teacher says.'
‘The script is overwhelming. It was difficult to pick out
6 5 key information in the lesson.'
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 65

Emerging Theme - Individualization

Individualization emerged as a theme from the special education teachers’

interviews. The researcher coded an “I” for individualization when the interviewee

mentioned the following words and/or described the following words: create, extra,

individualize, and make. Five out of the six special education teachers referred to the

theme of individualization in responses about the program (see Table 9).

Table 9

Interview Responses Related Individualization

Special
Education
Question Teacher
No. No. Interview Responses
‘Then, some of my kiddos needed help so I made extra
worksheets before moving ahead.'
2 1
‘Found that as we worked through the different types of
problems it was important to write my own follow-up
problems.'
2 4
‘I needed to create extra practice problems to help
students understand.'
2 5
‘To help the kids understand the [schema] diagrams, I
4 6 made additional problems.'
‘To be most effective, they didn’t want to read through
most of it [FOPS checklist] so I had to try to make my
5 4 own with fewer words.'

‘I had to look at individual needs to determine what were

6 3 needed. I individualized according to the needs.'
Some of the question types to have real world examples
or fourth grade friendly. I ended up writing some of my
own like video games or pizza so they could connect
6 4 with it.'
Continued
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 66

Table 9. Interview Responses Related Individualization – Continued.

‘I staggered my groups so that I could have more time
7 3 individually with students.'

‘He needed more help with the writing part of the

program. That was challenging for him. I looked at
needs of students, individualized for the best I could and
7 3 I saw progress so that’s how I did it.'

‘I thought the additional supports [teacher-created

problems] in there that it was very effective. I think it
was helpful when I took one type of problem and I had
the same people and items in the problem and changed
the type of problem. They saw that the same story could
7 4 be used in three different problem types.'

‘I thought the additional supports [teacher-created

problems] in there that it was very effective. I think it
was helpful when I took one type of problem and I had
the same people and items in the problem and changed
the type of problem. They saw that the same story could
8 2 be used in three different problem types.'
‘I saw the benefits of it [program] and I did like the way
8 3 I setup to individualize.'

‘I would probably continue to use additional examples

8 4 and ways to tell the different types of problems.'

Emerging Theme - Generalization

Another common theme among the special education teachers’ interview

responses was generalization. The researcher coded with a letter, G, for generalization

when the interviewee mentioned the following words/phrases and/or descriptions:

transfer, general education, and generalize. Two of the special education teachers spoke

positively about generalizing the schema-based instruction into the curriculum and/or

general education classroom (see Table 10).

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 67

Table 10

Positive Interview Responses Related to Generalization

Special
Education
Question Teacher
No. No. Interview Responses

‘The strategy can be used across [the] math curriculum

and Math In Focus. Oh, look at that! This is a compare
problem. This would help students generalize across the
2 4 board.’

‘I saw a positive outcome with the fourth grade student. I

spoke with her teacher. He came in and said oh she uses
this [schema diagrams] when she does word problems. It
4 3 was great to see her generalize this process.’

Table 11

Negative Interview Responses Related to Generalization

Special
Education
Question Teacher
No. No. Interview Responses
‘The procedures/diagrams do not match the diagrams
4 5 taught in the general education curriculum.'
‘The kids are learning different strategies in the general
education classroom. The classroom teachers need to be
4 6 familiar with the diagrams.'

‘The procedures do not match the procedures being taught

6 5 in the general education curriculum.'

‘Learning doesn’t transfer easily to the general education

7 6 classroom.'
‘I would not use it [program] at this point in time. The
general education curriculum that my students are using
8 5 addresses word problems using visuals like bar models.'
‘I do not think I would use it again. Like I said before, it
[learning] doesn’t transfer well to the general education
8 6 classroom.'
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 68

Two of the special education teachers negatively viewed the schema-based

instruction generalizing into the general education curriculum and/or general education

classroom (see Table 11).

Quantitative Data

Null Hypothesis #1: There is no increase in mathematical problem solving skills

of students with an educational diagnosis through the use of schema-based instruction, as

measured by a pre-to-post assessment.

The researcher performed a t-test for difference in means at a 95% confidence

level between the pre and post-assessment data gathered from the schema-based

instructional program. This calculation produced a t-test score that established a

difference of means between the two samples.

Pre and Post-Assessments

At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, 21students participated in a pre-

assessment and then completed a post-assessment toward the end of the 2013-2014

school year. Jitendra (2007) developed the pre and post-assessment for the program

titled, Solving Math Word Problems: Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities Using

Schema-Based Instruction, which included eight questions. After gathering the pre and

post-assessments scored by the teachers, the researcher rescored the assessments to

ensure fidelity. The researcher organized the raw data in a table and displayed the

difference between the pre and post-assessment, which indicated the amount of student

growth (see Table 12). The use of pseudonyms maintained anonymity for students who

generated the scores, used as secondary data for purposes of this study.
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 69

Table 12
Pre and Post-Assessment Raw Data – Problem Solving
Participants Pre- Post- Difference
Abe 25 63 38
Betsy 0 38 38
Charles 0 38 38
Dylan 63 100 37
Elizabeth 50 50 0
Frank 50 38 -12
George 13 38 25
Heidi 75 75 0
Isabella 25 50 25
Jazmine 0 38 38
Kim 0 28 28
Laura 88 63 -22
Manuel 0 25 25
Nanci 38 50 12
Olivia 25 25 0
Penelope 63 75 12
Quentin 0 25 25
Rasheed 25 50 25
Samantha 63 100 37
Tyson 13 50 37
Ursula 50 63 13

After displaying the raw data, the researcher calculated the means. The researcher

noted an increase in mean score from pre-to-post-assessment. The pre-assessment mean

of 31.7 and the post-assessment mean of 51.2 resulted in an increase of 19.5. The

researcher then performed a t-test for difference in means between the pre and post-

assessment data, which generated a t-test value of 2.53, then compared to the critical

value of 1.68. Based on these results, the researcher concluded a statistically significant

difference between the pre and post-assessment. Therefore, the researcher rejected Null

Hypothesis #1, that there is no increase in mathematical problem solving skills of

students with an educational diagnosis through the use of schema-based instruction, as

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 70

measured by a pre-to-post assessment, and supported a significant increase in scores (see

Table 13).

Table 13
T-Test of Pre and Post-Assessment
Post Pre
Mean 51.5238 31.7142
Variance 489.3619 796.8142
Observations 21 21
Pooled Variance 643.0880
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 40
t Stat 2.5312
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0077
t Critical one-tail 1.6838

Null Hypothesis #2: There is no increase in AIMSweb Math Concepts and

Application (M-CAP) benchmark scores of students with an educational diagnosis

through the use of schema-based instruction (fall and spring).

The researcher performed a t-test to determine a difference in means between the

fall and spring M-CAP assessment data at a 95% confidence level. This calculation

produced a t-test score that established no difference of means between the two samples.

Similar to the pre and post-assessment in the schema-based instructional program,

students also completed the M-CAP curriculum based measurement in the fall, winter,

and spring. For the purpose of this study, the researcher used scores from the fall and

spring as a pre and post-assessment secondary data. M-CAP assessed problem-solving

skills on concepts taught in grades two through eight. Twenty out of the 21 students took

the M-CAP assessment in the fall. One student was ill when the class participated in the

assessment and a make-up assessment was not provided. The researcher used national

percentages, instead of raw scores to compare multiple grade levels. The raw scores for
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 71

each grade level represented differing national norms, dependent on the grade level of the

test-taker. The researcher displayed the national percentage for each participant on the

fall and spring M-CAP assessment, and displayed student growth represented by the

difference (see Table 14).

Table 14
M-CAP Fall and Spring Raw Data
Fall Spring
(National (National
Participants Percentage) Percentage) Difference
Abe 1 18 17
Betsy 1 1 0
Charles 1 10 9
Dylan 1 8 7
Elizabeth 1 1 0
Frank 1 1 0
George 9 1 -8
Heidi 23 1 -22
Isabella 12 5 -7
Jazmine 1 1 0
Kim 1 1 0
Laura N/A 4 N/A
Manuel 1 1 0
Nanci 7 1 -6
Olivia 5 4 -1
Penelope 2 4 2
Quentin 1 1 0
Rasheed 1 1 0
Samantha 47 70 23
Tyson 36 83 47
Ursula 71 72 1

After displaying the raw data, the researcher calculated means. The researcher

noted an increase in means from the fall to spring M-CAP assessment, with a fall mean of

11.15 and a spring mean of 14.25; which indicated an increase of 3.07. The researcher

then performed a t-test for difference in means between the pre and post-assessment data

at a 95% confidence level. The t-test value was 0.42, then compared to the critical value
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 72

of 1.68 (see Table 15). Based on these results, the researcher did not reject Null

Hypothesis #2, there is no increase in AIMSweb M-CAP benchmark scores of students

with an educational diagnosis through the use of schema-based instruction, when

comparing fall and spring assessment data.

Table 15
T-Test between fall and spring M-CAP
Spring (National Fall (National
Percentage) Percentage)
Mean 14.250 11.150
Variance 708.829 363.292
Observations 20.000 20.000
Pooled Variance 536.061
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0.000
df 38.000
t Stat 0.423
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.337
t Critical one-tail 1.686

Pre and Post-Assessment Data by Disability Category

Initially, the researcher planned to perform a t-test to determine a significant

difference in means between pre and post-assessment data by disability category. Since

the overall sample size was low, each disability category lacked enough participants to

perform a t-test to find a difference in means. The researcher used descriptive statistics to

compare the differences between the pre and post-schema-based instructional program

assessment of each disability category and the mean difference of all participants (see

Table 16).

The researcher also used descriptive statistics to compare the differences between

the fall and spring M-CAP assessment data of each disability category and the mean

difference of all participants (see Table 17).

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 73

Table 16
Disability Category Descriptive Statistics of Pre and Post-Assessment Data
Difference Mean
between Difference
Number of Pre and of All
Disability Participants Pre- Post- Post- Participants Difference
Autism 12 29.25 46.08 17.08 19.9 -2.72

Learning
Disability 4 41 65.75 24.75 19.9 4.95
Other
Health
Impairment 2 31.5 56.5 25 19.9 5.2
Intellectual
Disability 2 44 62.5 18.5 19.9 -1.3
Emotional
Disturbance 1 0 28 28 19.9 8.2

Language
Impairment 2 56.5 62.5 6 19.9 -13.8

Table 17
Disability Category Descriptive Statistics of M-CAP
Difference
Number between Mean of
of Pre and All
Disability Participants Fall Spring Post- Participants Difference

Autism 12 7.91 8.91 1 3.1 -2.1

Learning
Disability 4 28.75 38.75 10 3.1 6.9

Other Health
Impairment 2 4 9.5 5.5 3.1 2.4

Intellectual
Disability 2 7 4.5 -2.5 3.1 -5.6
Emotional
Disturbance 1 1 1 0 3.1 -3.1

Language
Impairment 2 15 1 -14 3.1 -17.1
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 74

The researcher noted means of specific disabilities, autism, intellectual disability,

and language impairment, were lower than the average mean of all participants on both

the schema-based instructional program pre and post-assessment and the M-CAP fall and

spring assessment. The researcher also noted the means of LD and OHI were higher than

the average mean of all participants on both the schema-based instructional program pre

and post-assessment and the M-CAP fall and spring assessment. There was only one

participant in the sample with a disability of ED. The ED participant’s mean was higher

on the schema-based instructional program pre and post-assessment, but lower on the M-

CAP fall and spring assessment.

Pre and Post-Assessment Data by Grade Spans

Initially, the researcher planned to perform a t-test to determine a possible

statistical difference in means between participants in grades three through five and

participants in grades six through eight. There were more participants in grades six

through eight, n = 17, than grades three through five, n = 4. Due to the low sample size

in each grade span, the researcher was unable to perform a valid t-test to find a statistical

difference in means. The researcher used descriptive statistics to compare the differences

between participants in grades three through five and participants in grades six through

eight (see Table 18).

Table 18
Pre and Post-Assessment Mean by Grade Span
Grade
Span Pre- Post Difference
3-5 37.75 69 31.25
6-8 30.3 47.4 17.1
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 75

The researcher used descriptive statistics to compare the differences between

participants in grades three through five and participants in grades six through eight for

schema-based instructional program pre and post-assessment (see Table 19). The

researcher noted that participants in grades three through five had a higher mean on both

assessments, compared to participants in grades six through eight.

Table 19
M-CAP Mean by Grade Span
Fall Spring
Grade (National (National
Span Percentage) Percentage) Difference
3-5 38.75 60.75 22
6-8 4.25 2.63 -1.62

General Education Teacher Perception Survey

Four general education teachers in one school completed a survey to allow the

researcher to gain perceptions of the schema-based instructional program. Each teacher

had at least one student who received schema-based instruction in his or her classroom.

The survey consisted of three questions on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 (none) to 5

(always). The researcher’s intent was to determine whether significant difference in

means existed by performing a Chi-Square test. However, since the number of general

education teachers available to complete the survey was low, the researcher was unable to

perform the test. The researcher used descriptive statistics to analyze the survey results.

From the general education teachers’ responses, the researcher calculated the

mean for each question, based on the 1-to-5, none-to-always Likert scale. The first two

questions focused on the schema-based strategy while the third question asked the teacher

about the students’ confidence when solving math word problems. Survey questions #1

and #2 averaged a 2.75 response rating, leaning toward the middle, between ‘rarely’ and
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 76

‘some.’ The third question averaged a 3.25 response rating, leaning toward the middle

between ‘some’ and ‘frequently.’

After examining the mean for each response, the researcher analyzed the

percentage of each response by category, to each question. All participant responses

ranged between ‘rarely’ (2) and ‘frequently’ (4) (see Table 20).

Table 20
Percentages of General Education Teacher Survey Responses
Total
None Rarely Some Frequently Always Respondents
Q1 0 50 25 25 0 4
Q2 0 50 25 25 0 4
Q3 0 0 75 25 0 4

Two out of the four general education teachers responded to the statement at the

end of the survey, ‘Describe the effectiveness of the schema-based instruction’ (see Table

21).

Table 21

Specific Responses from General Education Teacher Survey

General
Education
Teacher
No. Survey Responses
‘Student was a bit more willing to work through problems and
1 discuss how/why to solve a problem a particular way.'

‘My student that received schema-based strategy instruction has

become much better at organizing and solving word problems. I
have noticed more attention to detail when solving problems. My
student takes more time to work through word problems and has
more to share when we discuss solving strategies as a class or in
2 small groups.'
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 77

Student Surveys

Null Hypothesis #3: Students will negatively perceive the use of schema-based

instruction, as measured by a Likert-scale survey.

The researcher performed an ANOVA test to determine potential difference in

means between student survey responses of ‘yes,’ ‘some,’ and ‘no.’ The ANOVA was

able to inform the researcher if there were differences among the three groups; however it

did not identify which group (‘yes,’ ‘some,’ or ‘no’) was significantly different from

another. In order for the researcher to determine a significant difference between

comparisons of the three groups individually, a test for difference in means was then

performed on ‘yes’ and ‘some’ and also on ‘yes’ and ‘no.’ This calculation produced a t-

test value that established the difference of means between two groups

Every student participant completed a student perception survey, which consisted

of five positive statements on a Likert scale. The Likert scale ranged from 1 (no) to 3

(yes). Nineteen participants completed the survey, and all participants completed

questions #1 to #4, while only nine completed the last question. All students could not

answer question #5, since only nine participants mastered ‘compare problems’ by the

time the school year ended (see Table 22).

Table 22
Student Survey Percentages and Completion Rate by Question
NO SOME YES Total # of Respondents
Q1 0 42 58 19
Q2 11 31 58 19
Q3 32 36 32 19
Q4 21 21 58 19
Q5 22 56 22 9
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 78

From the survey data, the researcher applied an ANOVA and determined whether

there was a difference in means between the three groups (see Table 23).

Table 23
ANOVA Summary
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
NO 5 86 17.2 147.7
SOME 5 186 37.2 169.7
YES 5 228 45.6 300.8

The F-test ratio was 5.165, described by Bluman (2010) as large and the p-value

was 0.0240 described by Bluman as small. The researcher determined the amount of

variance was larger between groups than within groups In addition, the F-test ratio of

5.165 was larger the F-critical value of 3.885 and the p-value of 0.0240 was smaller than

the α-value of 0.05; therefore the researcher rejected the null hypothesis, and the data

supported that a significant difference existed between the groups. The null hypothesis,

students will negatively perceive the effectiveness of schema-based instruction, as

measured by a Likert-scale survey, was rejected (see Table 24).

Table 24

Student Survey Analysis

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 2128.5 2 1064.3 5.16 0.0240 3.8852
Within Groups 2472.8 12 206.1

Total 4601.3 14

From data provided for the ANOVA, the researcher then analyzed for a difference

between groups (‘yes’ and ‘some’ or ‘yes’ and ‘no’) by applying a t-test for difference in

mean. Since the t-test value of 0.866 was less than the t-critical value of 1.860, no

significant difference existed between those who responded ‘yes’ and ‘some;’ the
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 79

researcher did not reject the null hypothesis that students will negatively perceive the

effectiveness of schema-based instruction, as measured by a Likert-scale survey (see

Table 25).

Table 25
T-Test between Yes and Some
YES SOME
Mean 45.6 37.2
Variance 300.8 169.7
Observations 5 5
Pooled Variance 235.25
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 8
t Stat 0.8659
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.2058
t Critical one-tail 1.8595

The researcher performed a t-test for difference in means to determine a possible

significance between the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ group of respondents. Since the t-test value of

2.999 was larger than the t-critical value of 1.860, there was a significant difference

between the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ group of respondents, and the ‘yes’ percentage of 45.6% was

larger than the ‘no’ percentage of 17.2%.

Table 26
T-test between Yes and No
YES NO
Mean 45.6 17.2
Variance 300.8 147.7
Observations 5 5
Pooled Variance 224.25
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 8
t Stat 2.9986
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0085
t Critical one-tail 1.8595
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 80

Therefore, the researcher did reject the Null Hypothesis #3 that students will

negatively perceive the effectiveness of schema-based instruction, as measured by a

Likert-scale survey, and data supported a non-negative, or positive, perception of

schema-based instruction in the classroom by students (see Table 26).

Summary

This data analysis supported the use of schema-based instruction with students

with an educational disability, based on qualitative data gathered from interviews and

quantitative data from the pre and post-schema-based program assessment, and

reinforced the then-current literature presented in Chapter Two. However, M-CAP

assessment data did not demonstrate the same amount of growth as the schema-based

program assessment. In addition, the analysis also displayed discrepancies in special

education and general education teachers’ overall perceptions of the schema-based

instructional program. Data analysis discussion and reflection are discussed in Chapter

Five.
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 81

Chapter Five: Discussion and Reflection

Introduction

As mentioned in the literature review, numerous studies conducted by Jitendra

and associates (1996, 1998, 2002, 2007, 2010, 2011) indicated positive academic results

of schema-based instruction on students with a wide variety of disabilities, and noted

schema-based instruction helped close the achievement gap and teach students with an

educational disability to solve mathematical word problems (Adams et al., 2007; Church

et al., 2013; Deatline-Buchmann et al., 2005; Fang et al., 2015; Fede et al., 2013; Griffin

& Jitendra, 2009; Jitendra et al., 2002; Jitendra et al., 1998; Jitendra et al., 2010; Jitendra

& Hoff, 1996; Rockwell et al., 2011). The purpose of this study was to measure student

achievement on mathematical problem solving skills for students in grades three through

eight, previously identified with an educational disability, after schema-based instruction.

The researcher measured student achievement by using both a pre and post-assessment

and M-CAP benchmark scores on mathematical problem solving. In addition, the

researcher was interested in gathering special and general education teachers’ and

students’ perceptions of schema-based instruction through surveys and interviews.

The researcher analyzed data from a pre and post-schema-based instructional

program assessment and M-CAP benchmark scores. The researcher performed a t-test

for difference in means on both sets of assessments. On the schema-based instructional

program assessment, the researcher discovered a statistically significant difference.

However, there was not a statistically significant difference when analyzing the

secondary data, M-CAP benchmark scores. The researcher then disaggregated the

assessment scores by disability category and also by grade span. The researcher noted
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 82

the mean scores of participants with autism, intellectual disability, and language

impairment were lower than the average mean scores of all participants on both the

schema-based instructional program pre and post-assessment and the M-CAP fall and

spring assessment. The researcher also noted the mean scores of students with LDs and

OHIs were higher than the average mean of all participants on both the schema-based

instructional program pre and post-assessment and the M-CAP fall and spring

assessment. The researcher concluded participants in grades three through had a higher

difference in mean scores on both assessments, compared to participants in grades six

through eight.

The researcher also analyzed data gathered in interview responses and surveys by

all the participants in the study. After coding the six special education teachers’

interview responses, several themes emerged: organization, routine or structure,

language, individualization, and generalization. The researcher also analyzed student

survey data and determined a significant difference between the mean ratings of the ‘yes’

and ‘no’ survey prompt answers. Finally, the researcher analyzed the four general

education teachers’ survey results and found two questions leaned to the negative

direction, related to schema-based instruction. The third question on problem solving

leaned to the positive direction, when calculating the mean rating response.

Research Questions

RQ1: How do special education teachers perceive the implementation of schema-

based instruction?

RQ2: How do special education teachers perceive schema-based instruction and

student achievement?
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 83

RQ3: How do general education teachers perceive schema-based instruction and

student achievement?

Hypotheses

H1: There is an increase in mathematical problem solving skills of students with

an educational diagnosis through the use of schema-based instruction, as measured by a

pre-to-post assessment.

H2: There is an increase in AIMSweb Math Concepts and Application (M-CAP)

benchmark scores of students with an educational diagnosis through the use of schema-

based instruction.

H3: Students will positively perceive the schema-based instruction, as measured

by a Likert-scale survey.

Discussion of Findings

Research Question 1. How do special education teachers perceive the

implementation of schema-based instruction?

When analyzing the special education teacher interview responses, several themes

emerged, related to the implementation process: individualization, organization,

language, and routine or structures. The majority of special education teachers needed to

modify or individualize instruction to meet the needs of all students. As part of special

education, each child received an IEP (Project IDEAL, 2013). In the researchers’

experience, an individualized plan for students with an educational disability appeared

‘logical.’ A common way to individualize instruction was by creating word problems to

match student interest or background knowledge and to ensure students mastered each

problem type. The special education teachers also noted the organization of the program;
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 84

specifically the scripts the program provided. Jitendra (2007) intended the scripts not to

be read verbatim, but to be used as a guide for expected teacher and student language.

The language of the materials appeared too wordy for some of the students. Therefore,

special education teachers attempted to minimize the wordiness to meet students’ needs.

The special education teachers also discussed the routine or structure of the

program. Implementation required repetition of the tools, including the FOPS checklist

and the schema diagrams. Some special education teachers stressed the importance of

consistently providing these tools, especially in the beginning, until students

demonstrated mastery. Jitendra (2007) discussed the importance of providing the tools in

the beginning and slowly fading the use of the tools as student’s demonstrated mastery of

the material.

Research Question #2. How do special education teachers perceive the schema-

based instruction and student achievement?

When analyzing the special education teacher interview responses, several themes

emerged, related to student achievement after using schema-based instruction:

organization, language, and generalization. The majority of special education teachers

perceived the schema-based instructional program helped students organize how to solve

mathematical word problems. The special education teachers perceived that the FOPS

checklist and schema diagrams also helped students organize during problem solving. As

stated in the research, students who struggled with mathematical problem solving

required a way to organize the word problem for greater understanding. Once the

problem was organized, students had a better chance of solving the problem correctly

(Fede, 2010; Jitendra, 2007; r4 Education Solutions, 2010).

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 85

The special education teachers noted the theme of language, as related to the

schema-based instruction and student achievement. Two special education teachers

reported students who struggled in the area of language had a difficult time when using

schema-based instruction. Special education teachers also shared students who were

language impaired struggled with this program, due to the wordiness of the program,

including the FOPS checklist and the schema diagrams. Therefore, the special education

teachers perceived student achievement would decrease for students who struggled in the

area of language.

The special education teachers also discussed the theme of generalization related

to student achievement after the use of the schema-based instructional program. Two

special education teachers perceived the program as having a positive outcome on student

achievement as students were able to generalize mathematical problem solving skills in a

general education classroom/curriculum; two other special education teachers perceived

the program as ineffective related to student achievement, because students were unable

to generalize the skills/strategies from the program. Two of the special education

teachers perceived the program/strategies were easily transferrable into the general

education classroom. One teacher discussed how the different diagrams appeared helpful

when solving word problems found within the district curricular materials. The other

teacher heard from one of the students’ general education teachers, diagrams were also

used in the classroom when solving mathematical word problems.

Generalizing strategies across settings was vital when students were learning a

new skill. If generalization occurred, student achievement improved. Two other special

education teachers perceived students’ level of difficulty related to generalizing

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 86

skills/strategies, when using the schema-based instructional program. Students became

confused on which strategy to follow, since the schema-based instructional program was

different than what was taught in the students’ general education classrooms. Students

with a disability needed consistency across the school day, especially when strategies

were presented in a specific area(s) of deficit. The two teachers stressed an inability of

students to transfer strategies (diagrams and FOPS checklist) into other word problems

not in the program. Both teachers decided not to use this program in the future.

Research Question #3. How do general education teachers perceive schema-

based instruction and student achievement?

Four general education teachers completed a survey to share perceptions of

schema-based instruction and student achievement. The survey consisted of three

questions with the responses using a Likert scale from 1-to-5, none-to-always. The first

two questions directly asked the teacher about the schema-based strategy, while the third

question asked the teacher about the students’ confidence when solving math word

problems. The responses to the first two questions related to the schema-based strategy

leaned to the negative direction. The general education teachers did negatively view the

schema-based instructional program, as helping students solve mathematical word

problems in their classrooms. During the 2013-2014 school year, the district where the

study was conducted implemented a new mathematical curricular program called Math In

Focus, based on the Singapore math curriculum. This program stressed the concrete-

pictorial-abstract instructional (CPA) process and used bar models (visual depictions) to

teach methods to solve mathematical word problems (Cavendish, 2013). While learning

to implement this program, the general education teachers had difficulty stressing the
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 87

schema-based instructional strategies, while also stressing the strategies taught in the

students’ everyday curriculum. In addition, the researcher did not personally discuss the

schema-based program with the general education teachers. The two special education

teachers were responsible for communicating with the general education teachers and

helping them to understand the strategies (FOPS checklist, schema diagrams, etc.) that

each student learned, in order for students to generalize specific skills.

While the first two questions specifically addressed the schema-based strategies

and leaned to the negative direction, the third question related to students’ confidence

when solving mathematical word problems leaned to the positive direction. The third

question did not directly relate to the schema-based instruction. Therefore, since the first

two questions leaned to the negative direction, the researcher concluded that the general

education teachers’ perception of an increase in students’ confidence level from the third

question could not be linked to the schema-based instructional program. As stated above,

the special education and general education teachers exposed students to multiple ways to

solve mathematical word problems. The schema-based strategies and the strategies

taught in the Math In Focus both assisted students in increasing their confidence levels.

Hypothesis #1. There is an increase in mathematical problem solving skills of

students with an educational diagnosis through the use of schema-based instruction, as

measured by a pre-to-post assessment.

The analysis of the schema-based instructional program pre and post-assessment

data support Hypothesis #1. The analysis did support an increase in the mathematical

problem solving skills of students with a diagnosed educational disability through the use

of schema-based instruction. Most students (19 out of 21) increased their mathematical
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 88

problem solving skills, as measured by this assessment. The schema-based instructional

program had many best practices/strategies in the area of mathematics and in the area of

supporting students with disabilities: the pictorial and abstract part of the CPA instruction

process, a checklist with a mnemonic strategy, graphic organizers (schema diagrams), use

of a reading comprehension strategy of retelling in one’s own words, use of a think-aloud

strategy, cooperative learning, and word problems with real world application. Along

with the best practices/strategies, the program provided teachers with a detailed script.

This detailed script provided teachers with a tool to ask appropriate questions and

provided a means to elicit responses from students. The script included exemplary

student responses to provide teachers with a tool for prompting student responses and

encouraging growth towards mastery. In addition, the researcher believed the author,

Jitendra (2007), organized the program in a logical manner and was practical for teacher

use. The researcher concluded the use of the best practices/strategies and an organized,

detailed program aided in the increase of mathematical problem solving skills in students

with a disability.

Hypothesis #2: There is an increase in AIMSweb Math Concepts and Application

(M-CAP) benchmark scores of students with an educational diagnosis through the use of

schema-based instruction.

The analysis of the AIMSweb M-CAP assessment data did not support the

Hypothesis #2. Student data did not show an increase in mathematical problem solving

skills, based on the secondary data, M-CAP national percentages. The researcher

believed this occurred since M-CAP assessed more than just mathematical problem

solving skills in word problems; it also assessed problem solving skills in the following
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 89

non-word problem domains for grades three through eight: number sense, number and

operations, patterns and relationships, measurement, geometry, and data and probability.

The questions in these non-word problem domains revealed schema-based instruction did

not increase a student’s overall ability to solve problems that were not word problems.

This study only directly examined if a student’s mathematical word problem solving

increased. The schema-based instructional program was supplemental to a student’s

regular mathematical curricular materials.

Another reason for the lack of growth on the M-CAP benchmark assessment was

this tool assessed students on grade-level standards. Students who received specialized

instruction in the area of math from a special education teacher may not understand

grade-level concepts in the domains of number sense, measurement, and geometry. The

schema-based instructional program and assessment remediated and assessed skills on a

student’s individual instructional level. Students in the general education classroom

mastered addition and subtraction word problems and generally worked on mastering

more complex skills. The students in this study had not mastered these basic skills

included in the study, because the students lacked foundational mathematical problem-

solving skills.

Hypothesis #3: Students will positively perceive schema-based instruction, as

measured by a Likert-scale survey.

The analysis of the student survey data did support the Hypothesis # 3, students

would positively perceive schema-based instruction, as measured by a Likert-scale

survey. The analysis supported student’s positively perceived schema-based instruction

due to the significant difference between the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ groups. Since most students
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 90

demonstrated growth on their pre and post-schema-based instructional assessments, the

researcher believed the students developed greater confidence in an ability to succeed.

The researcher analyzed the participants’ student survey responses by question, to

determine which statements the students answered more frequently as ‘yes.’ The

students rated statement #1 (The diagrams helped me solve word problems) and

statement #2 (The FOPS checklist helped me solve math word problems) more frequently

in the ‘yes’ category, with few or no responses in the ‘no’ category. The first two

questions specifically targeted the strategies used in the schema-based instruction

program, including the visual diagrams and checklist. Both strategies were ‘best

practice’ in the area of mathematics for helping all students, especially students who

struggled in problem solving. Questions #3, #4, and #5 related to the three different

addition/subtraction problem types (change, group, and compare) and had a higher

student selection of ‘no’ than the questions #1 and #2. Teachers directly taught these

diagrams in the program so students could differentiate between the three schema

diagrams to solve a wide variety of mathematical word problems. Being able to

distinguish between the three diagrams was a difficult task for the students. The

researcher believed the students rated questions #3, #4, and #5 not as positively as

questions #1 and #2, because the students struggled with the skills.

Disability Categories

Since the overall sample was low, the researcher used descriptive statistics to

compare the difference between the pre and post-assessment of each disability category

and the mean difference of all participants. The researcher analyzed the mean scores of

students with autism, intellectual disability, and language impairment, lower than the
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 91

average mean of all participants on both the schema-based instructional program pre and

post-assessment and the M-CAP fall and spring assessment. The literature review

supported students with autism, an intellectual disability, or a language impairment

struggled with language concepts (Fede et al., 2013; Rockwell et al., 2011). One of the

emergent sub-themes from the special education teachers’ responses was the difficulty of

the schema-based instruction for students with low language. The teachers described

how the script and/or materials were too difficult for students who struggled in this area.

The pre and post-assessment data for the disability categories of students who struggled

in the area of language complemented the theme from the special education teachers’

responses that students with low language struggled with schema-based instruction,

leading the researcher to conclude schema-based instruction was difficult for students

who struggled in the area of language.

The researcher also noted the mean of students with an LD and OHI were higher

than the average mean of all participants on both the schema-based instructional program

pre and post-assessment and the M-CAP fall and spring assessment. The literature

review supported this result; students with an LD or OHI benefitted from strategies like

the visual schema diagrams and the FOPS checklist presented in the schema-based

instructional program (Jitendra, 2007). The researcher also found these six students had

an average IQ, as stated in the special education eligibility report.

Grade Span

Since the sample size was low, the researcher used descriptive statistics to

compare the differences between participants in grades three through five and

participants in grades six through eight. The researcher noted that participants in grades
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 92

three through five had a higher difference in mean on both assessments compared to

participants in grades six through eight. The students in grades three through five spent

more of the school day in the general education classroom than the students in grades six

through eight. Therefore, the IEP teams of the students in grade three through five

decided these students were capable of grasping grade level concepts, while receiving

remediation in the area of mathematics from the special education teachers. In addition,

all students received instruction in the schema-based instructional program in addition

and subtraction word problems; more appropriate for students in three through five.

Teachers taught the students in grades six through eight multiple ways to solve addition

and subtraction word problems. Jitendra (2007) stated older students might have greater

difficulty learning the schema-based instruction, because of an exposure to multiple ways

to solve a mathematical word problem. The students in grades six through eight also

struggled repeatedly with solving word problems during elementary years. The

researcher believed secondary teachers (6-12) had high expectations for students to learn

the content while elementary teachers (K-5) had high expectations for students to fully

understand and to fully apply the concepts taught. The researcher concluded schema-

based instruction might have come easier for elementary teachers than secondary

teachers, due to an expectation of conceptual versus content understanding.

Recommendations for Future Studies

This mixed-method study supported the use of schema-based instruction,

especially when using Jitendra’s (2007) program, Solving Math Word Problems:

Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities Using Schema-Based Instruction, for

students with an educational disability. The researcher discovered commonalities

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 93

between this study and previous studies involving schema-based instruction conducted by

other researchers (see Table 17). These previous studies assisted the researcher in

developing this study and in determining recommendations for future studies in the area

of mathematical problem solving using schema-based instruction (see Appendix D).

The researcher recommends, in future studies, a larger sample size of students

with an educational disability and which received specialized instruction in the area of

mathematical problem solving, for statistical analysis to occur. An increase in the

number of participants would allow for generalization of the results; an increase the

number of participants would also better reflect the population as a whole. A larger

participant population would have allowed the researcher to determine the significant

differences with greater clarity.

The researcher had hoped to determine a significant difference in the areas of

disability categories and grade span based on the pre and post-assessment data. Due to

the low number of participants, the researcher used descriptive statistics. The researcher

recommends an increase in the number of participants in both of these areas, to promote

better generalization of the study to the larger population for future studies and to provide

educators with specific selection criteria. If the findings supported using schema-based

instruction with students with an intellectual disability, an educator could select schema-

based instruction. However, if there were more students with an intellectual disability in

this study and the researcher found schema-based instruction was not beneficial, then an

educator would be advised not to use schema-based instruction and to find another

research-based intervention.
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 94

The researcher believed additional information would have improved this study;

specifically: this study could have included a maintenance mathematical problem solving

assessment to determine if the students were able to maintain the skills gained from the

schema-based instruction. Students who struggled with memory retention when learning

a new strategy like schema-based instruction needed to retain the skills or strategies

taught by the educators. Since retention was very important, the researcher should have

interviewed general education teachers who participated in the study. Additional

qualitative information would have provided the researcher insight into students

generalizing strategies into the general education classroom. Students with a disability,

specifically autism, struggled with generalizing skills across environments.

The researcher also recommends conducting a comparison study between the

schema-based instruction approach and the general-strategy instruction approach

presented in the district’s curricular materials, Math in Focus. The Math in Focus

curricular materials based on the Singapore math approach utilized a visual

representation of bar models for students to solve mathematical word problems. By

doing a comparison study, the researcher could make additional recommendations to the

district regarding the use of both approaches with students who received special

education services.

Additionally, the researcher recommends including general education students in

the study. By including general education students, the study would have added to the

growing body of literature supporting the use of schema-based instruction with students

in the general education environment. Including general education students would have
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 95

allowed the researcher to make additional recommendations to the researched district

about mathematical problem solving approaches.

The researcher recommends a different instructional approach for students with an

intellectual disability or a language impairment, since the means of specific disabilities,

intellectual disability and language impairment, were lower than the average mean of all

participants on both the schema-based instructional program pre and post-assessment and

the M-CAP fall and spring assessment. Additionally, the theme of language emerged

from the special education teachers’ responses related to the wordiness of the program,

and students with low language struggled with the schema-based instructional program.

Furthermore, the previous studies discussed in Chapter Two did not include participants

with a language impairment or an intellectual disability. With no previous studies, the

researcher added to the body of literature on the use of schema-based instruction with

students with an intellectual disability or a language impairment; the researcher

recommends further studies investigate the use of schema-based instruction on students

with an intellectual disability or a language impairment.

Fang et al., in 2015, conducted a study utilizing a simplified schema-based

instructional approach with second grade students. The researcher recommends the

simplified schema-based instructional approach, or a version of the simplified schema-

based instructional approach, with students diagnosed with an intellectual disability or a

language impairment as an alternative approach, due to the shortened routine with less

memorization and less language. Again, the researcher would caution the future

researcher, related to the small sample size of students diagnosed with an intellectual
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 96

disability and a language impairment making it difficult to generalize the results of the

study.

During the 2013-2014 school year, the elementary schools in the district adopted

new mathematical, curricular materials tied to the CCSS. When adopting new curricular

materials, additional training and time was utilized in preparing both general and special

education teachers. The researcher would not recommend conducting a study with

additional training in the same subject at a school then-currently going through a

materials adoption.

Recommendations for District

The researcher had several recommendations for the district for the continued use

of the schema-based instructional program. Originally, the researcher recommended

educators utilize schema-based instruction with students with an education disability that

impaired their mathematical problem solving abilities. The researcher would caution the

district to add this program to the list of successful interventions for special education

teachers to select, based on the needs of the students. The researcher disagreed educators

should use this program with every student and this schema-based instructional program

should not be the primary curricular material implemented for any student. The schema-

based instructional program only covered mathematical word problems and did not cover

all the other grade-level standards (e.g., place value, fractions, geometry, etc.) The

researcher stresses schema-based instruction was a tool for an educator’s toolbox to

utilize when a student was not making adequate progress with solving mathematical word

problems.
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 97

For this program to lead to increased academic outcomes in the researched

district, additional training would need to occur with both special and general education

teachers and include training similar to that provided to special education teachers in this

study; specifically understanding of word problem schemas. Teachers needed fluency in

the identification of appropriate schematic diagrams for all problem types. Having

teachers fluent in the schematic diagrams for all problems types would increase an

educator’s confidence when teaching students how to approach a mathematical word

problem. As coaching was available to the participants if a question or concern arose

while teaching schema-based instruction, the researcher believes job-embedded coaching

would have increased the participants’ confidence when delivering the schema-based

instructional program. The researcher recommends if the district chose to continue the

use of the schema-based instructional program job-embedded coaching along with initial

training be a requirement.

During the 2013-2014 school year, the elementary school in this study adopted

new curricular materials that taught mathematical problem solving using methods

different from that of schema-based instruction. The researcher would caution the

teachers and district in simultaneously teaching students multiple ways to solve

mathematical word problems. The students who did not benefit from the new curricular

adoption approach could benefit from the schema-based instructional program. However,

educators would need to reinforce and generalize the schema-based instruction in the

general education classroom for the students to successfully use the strategies across

multiple settings.
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 98

Recommendations to Improve Schema-Based Instructional Program

After analyzing the data, the researcher had several recommendations to improve

the schema-based instructional program titled, Solving Math Word Problems: Teaching

Students with Learning Disabilities Using Schema-Based Instruction, by Jitendra (2007),

if another edition were written. Five-out-of-the-six special education teachers discussed

the need to create additional problems in order for their students to master each schema.

The researcher recommends that multiple worksheets or additional problems for each

schema be added to the program, as supplemental materials. As noted in the literature,

some students would benefit from repetition (Dombeck et al., 2013) and the additional

worksheets/problems would allow teachers the ability to provide additional practice on an

as-needed basis to ensure student understanding.

The researcher also endorses the suggestion from teachers in this study that

suggests implementers of this program should utilize personalized word problems. The

literature noted that students who had little motivation to solve mathematical word

problems benefited from personalized word problems (Hart, 1996; Technical Education

Research Center, 2008). One special education teacher in this study also discussed the

need to create word problems with real-world experiences to engender and sustain

student interest in solving the problem. This recommendation would be placed either in

the beginning of the program as another way to engage students who struggle or

throughout the program in the teacher-directed script.

As noted in the researcher’s recommendation to the district, the special education

and general education teachers needed additional training to effectively implement

schema-based instruction. This program offered no materials specifically labeled for

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 99

teacher training. The program described schema-based instruction and how to utilize the

program in the beginning. However, specific materials designed to support the

implementation of the program in classroom instruction would have benefitted the

educators and created a more uniform implementation of the program. Specific training

materials could include videos depicting lessons utilizing schema-based instruction and a

visual presentation when training future implementers on how to effectively implement

this instruction.

Generalization was a common theme when the researcher coded the special

education teachers’ interview responses. In order to help students generalize their

recently taught skills in the schema-based instructional program, the researcher

recommends the program add a parent connections page. The parent connections page

would thoroughly describe the schema-based strategies utilized in the program and how

parents could best support their children in transferring these skills. As two special

education teachers noted that generalization was difficult and students had difficulty

utilizing this instruction in their general education classroom, the parent connections page

could also be given to the general education teachers as a resource of methods to

encourage students to use their recently-taught strategies.

The researcher also recommends a list of other instructional approaches that could

be utilized to assist students who are struggling to understand the schema-based

instructional strategies taught in Jitendra’s (2007) program. As noted in

recommendations for future studies, the researcher recommended that a modified or

simplified schema-based instructional approach (Fang et al., 2015) be used with students

with an intellectual disability or a language impairment. The researcher recommends a

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 100

modified or simplified schema-based instructional approach (Fang et al., 2015) would be

specifically listed as an option for teachers to use with struggling students. As noted in

the literature review, the concrete-representational (pictorial)-abstract (CRA) process was

a successful way to teach mathematical, conceptual understanding (Hudson & Miller,

2006; Korn, 2014; Sousa, 2008). Jitendra’s (2007) schema-based instructional program

had the representational and abstract portion of the CRA process. The researcher

recommends the program incorporate the concrete stage; thereby, encouraging

implementers to use hands-on materials to assist students in learning the strategies

incorporated into the schema-based instructional program. Again, this suggestion to use

concrete materials when students are not grasping the concept could be incorporated into

the beginning of the program or this could be incorporated into the teacher-directed script

specifically outlining when and how to utilize the concrete stage.

Conclusion

Students with an educational disability faced a diverse set of challenges in

different areas in education and benefited from using evidence-based or research-based

interventions (Graham et al., 2013; Hagaman et al., 2013; Forbringer & Fuchs, 2014). In

this study, the researcher analyzed quantitative and qualitative data including pre and

post-assessment data from the schema-based instructional program, M-CAP data, student

survey data, special education teacher interview responses, and general education teacher

survey responses, to determine to what extent Jitendra’s (2007) schema-based

instructional program would benefit students who struggled with mathematical problem

solving. As evident in this study and as noted in the then-current literature, the program

titled, Solving Math Word Problems: Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities Using
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 101

Schema-Based Instruction, by Jitendra (2007) was a research-based intervention that

helped to develop mathematical problem-solving skills for students who struggled. After

analysis of the results of this study and the demonstrated success of the program with

students with diverse educational disabilities, the researcher recommended that special

education teachers add schema-based instruction to the list of successful interventions

from which to select, based on the needs of their students, in order to help all students

achieve a greater level of proficiency in mathematical problem solving.

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 102

References

The Access Center. (2006). Strategies to improve access to the general education

curriculum. Retrieved from The Access Center: http://www.k12.wa.us/Special

Ed/programreview/Monitoring/Placement/StrategiestoImproveAccess.pdf

The Access Center. (2009, August 26). Concrete-representational-abstract instructional

approach. Retrieved from The Access Center: http://www.broward.k12.fl.us/

studentsupport/ese/PDF/CRAApproachinMath.pdf

Adams, A., Griffin, C., Haria, P., Jitendra, A., Kaduvettoor, & Leh, J. (2007). A

comparison of single and multiple strategy instruction on third-grade students'

mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 115-

127.

Allsopp, D., Kyger, M., & Lovin, L. (2007). Teaching mathematics meaningfully:

solutions for reaching struggling learners. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Alter, P., Brown, E., & Pyle, J. (2011). A strategy-based intervention to improve math

word problem-solving skills of students with emotional and behavioral disorders.

Education and Treatment of Children, 34(4), 535-550.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2014, July 31). Spoken language

disorders. Retrieved from www.asha.org/prpspecifictopic.aspc?folderid=

8589934327&section=signs_and_symptoms

Autism Speaks. (2015). PDD-NOS. Retrieved from Autism Speaks: https://www.autism

speaks.org/what-autism/pdd-nos

Autism Spectrum Disorder. (2016, March 28). Facts about ASD. Retrieved from Autism

Spectrum Disorder: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/facts.html

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 103

Barnhill, K. (2011, May). Changes in mathematics education during the twentieth

century. Merkel, TX. Retrieved from http://www.mcm.edu/mathdept/Kaitlyn_

Barnhill_2011.pdf

Barrera, M., Liu, K., & Thurlow, M. (2009). Using mathematics think-alouds: a field-

identified teaching strategy for english language learners with disabilities.

Retrieved rom National Center for Educational Outcomes: https://ncela.ed.gov/

files/webinars/9/thurlow_barrerra_liu_apr09.pdf

Barwell, R. (2011, June). Word problems. Retrieved from What Works? Research into

Practice: www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_

Word_Problems.pdf

Battista, M., Mayberry, S., Thompson, D., Yeatts, K., & Zawojewski, J. (2005).

Navigating through problem solving and reasoning in grade 4. Reston, VA:

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Blakely, A., & von Ravensberg, H. (2014, October). When to use functional behavioral

assessment? Retrieved from Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports: https:

//www.pbis.org/common/cms/files/pbisresources/when_to-use_functional_

behavioral_assessment.pdf

Burris, A. (2005). Understanging the math you teach for prekindergarten through grade

4. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Cavendish, M. (2013). Math in focus: singapore math. New York City, NY: Houghton

Mifflin Harcourt.
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 104

Center for Parent Information and Resources. (2015a, July). Intellectual disability.

Retrieved from Center for Parent Information and Resources: www.parent

centerhub.com/repository/intellectual/

Center for Parent Information and Resources. (2015b, July). Speech and language

impairments. Retrieved from Center for Parent Information and Resources:

www.parentcenterhub.org/repository/speechlanguage/

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, & Health Resources and Services

Administration. (2014, December 10). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

(ADHD). Retrieved from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://

www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/features/key-findings-adhd72013.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014, March 27). CDC estimates 1 in 68

children has been identified with autism spectrum disorder. Retrieved from

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/

p0327-autism-spectrum-disorder.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016a, March 28). Autism spectrum

disorder. Retrieved from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: https://

www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/facts.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016b, June 9). Children's mental health.

Retrieved from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: www.cdc.gov/

childrensmentalhealth/data.html

Church, C., Corroy, K., Huang, J., Kanive, R., Jitendra, A., Rodriguez, M. & Zaslofsky,

A. (2013). Impact of small-group tutoring interventions on the mathematical

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 105

problem solving and achievement of third-grade students with mathematical

difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(1), 21-35.

Clark, & Kamhi. (2010). Language disorders (child language disorder). Retrieved from

International Encyclopedia of Rehabilitation: cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/

article/31/

Cohen, M., & Sloan, D. (2007). Visual supports for people with autism. Bethesda, MD:

Woodbine House, Inc.

Coleman, M., Gallagher, J., & Kirk, S. (2015). Educating exceptional children. Stamford,

CT: Cengage Learning.

Common Core State Standard Initiative. (2016). About the standards. Retrieved from

Common Core State Standards Initiative: www.corestandards.org/about-the-

standards/

Crawford, J. (2014,September). The debate over common core. Retrieved from CBS

News: www.cbsnews.com/news/the-debate-over-common-core/

Dean, C., Hubbell, E., Pitler, H., & Stone, B. (2013). Classroom instruction that works:

research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:

Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Deatline-Buchman, A., Jitendra, A., & Xin, Y. (2005). Effects of mathematical word

problem-solving instruction on middle-school students with learning problems.

Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 181-192.

Dombeck, M., Reynolds, T., & Zupanick, C. (2013). Diagnostic criteria for intellectual

disabilities. Retrieved from Mental Help: https://www.mentalhelp.net./articles/

diagnostic-criteria-for-intellectual-disabilities-dsm-5-criteria/
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 106

Donaldson, J., & Zager, D. (2010). Mathematics intervention for students with high

functioning autism/asperger's syndrome. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(6),

40-46.

Dossey, J., McCrone, S. S., & Halvorsen, K. T. (2012). Mathematics education in the

United States. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Dunston, P., & Tyminski, A. (2013). What's the big deal about vocabulary? Mathematics

Teaching in the Middle School, 19(1), 38-45.

Esteves, K., & Rao, S. (2008, November/December). The evolution of special education.

National Association of Elementary Principals, 1(1), 1-3.

Fang, H., Hartsell, T., Herron, S., Mohn, R., & Zhou, Q. (2015). The effects of simplified

schema-based instruction on elementary students' mathematical word problem

solving performance. Journal of Mathematics Education, 8(1), 37-55.

Fede, J. (2010). The effects of gosolve word problems math intervention on applied

problem solving skills of low performing fifth grade students. Amherst, MA.

Fede, J., Pierce, M., Matthews, W., & Wells, C. (2013). The effects of a computer-

assisted, schema-based instruction intervention on word problem-solving skills of

low performing fifth grade students. Journal of Special Education Technology,

28(1), 9-21.

Florida Department of Education. (2010). Classroom cognitive and meta-cognitive

strategies for teachers. Retrieved from Florida Department of Education:

floridarti.usf.edu/resources/format/pdf/classroom%20cognitive%20and%20metac

ognitive%20strategies%20for%20teachers_revised_SR-09.08.10.pdf
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 107

Forbringer, L., & Fuchs, W. (2014). RtI in math: evidence-based interventions for

struggling students. New York, NY: Routledge.

Fosnot, C., & Dolk, M. (2001). Young mathematicians at work: constructing

multiplication and division. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Fosnot, C., Leinwand, S., Mark, J., O’Connell, S., & Ray-Riek, M. (2015). What is

mathematical fluency and how does it support learning? Retrieved from

Heinemann: http://www.heinemann.com/blog/mathfluency-ncsmvid/

Franz, D. (2015, June). Supporting struggling learners. Retrieved from Apex Learning:

www.apexlearning.com/documents/research_digital_curriculum_math_2015-

09.pdf

Goldman, S., & Hasselbring, T. (1997). Achieving meaningful mathematical literacy for

students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 198-

208.

Graham, S., Harris, K., & Swanson, H. (2013). Handbook of learning disabilities. New

York City, NY: Guilford Press.

Gray, T., PowerUp What Works, & Zorfass, J. (2014). Understanding word problems in

math. Retrieved from LD Online: www.ldonline.org/article/62401/

Griffin, C., & Jitendra, A. (2008). Word problem-solving instruction in inclusive third-

grade mathematics classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 102(3), 187-

202.

Groth, R. (2013). Teaching mathematics in grades 6-12: developing research-based

instructional practices. Washington DC: Sage Publishing.

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 108

Hagaman, J., Lienemann, T., & Reid, R. (2013). Strategy instruction for students with

learning disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hallahan, D. (2015). Exceptional learners: an introduction to special education. New

York, NY: Pearson.

Hart, J. (1996). The effect of personalized word problems. Teaching Children

Mathematics, 2(8), 504-505.

Hong, K., Lim, J., & Mei, Y. (2009). Singapore model method for learning mathematics.

Tarrytown, NY: EBP Panpac Education.

Hudson, P., & Miller, S. (2006). Desigining and implementing mathematics instructino

for students with diverse learning needs. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (2003). Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Retrieved

from Educational Psychology Interactive: http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/

topics/cognition/piaget.html

Hyde, A. (2006). Comprehending math: adapting reading strategies to teach

mathematics, K-6. Portsmouth , NH: Heinemann.

Individuals with Disabilties Education Act. (2004). Public law 108-446. Retrieved from

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: idea.ed.gov/part-c/downloads/idea-

statute.pdf

The Iris Center. (2016). Glossary. Retrieved from The Iris Center: iris.peabody.

vanderbilt.edu/glossary/

Jan, S., & Rodrigues, S. (2012). Students' difficulties in comprehending mathematical

word problems in english language learning contexts. International Researchers,

1(3).
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 109

Jitendra, A. (2007). Solving math word problems: teaching students with learning

disabilities using schema-based instruction. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Jitendra, A., & Hoff, K. (1996). Mathematical word-problem-solving performance of

students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 422-

31.

Jitendra, A, & Star. (2011). Meeting the needs of students with learning disabilities in

inclusive mathematics classrooms: the role of schema-based instruction on

mathematical problem-solving. Theory into Practice, 50(1), 12-19.

Jitendra, A., DiPipi, C., & Perron-Jones, N. (2002). An exploratory study of schema-

based word-problem- solving instruction for middle school students with learning

disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 23-38.

Jitendra, A., George, M., Sood, S., & Price, K. (2010). Schema-based instruction:

facilitating mathematical word problem solving for students with emotional and

behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, 54, 145-151. doi.org/10.

1080/10459880903493104

Jitendra, A., Griffin, C., McGoey, K., Gardill, M., Bhat, P., & Riley, T. (1998). Effects of

mathematical word problem sovling by students at risk or with mild disabilities.

Journal of Education Research, 91(6), 345-355.

Kern, L., & Wehby, J. (2014). Intensive behavior intervention. Teaching Exceptional

Children, 46(4), 38-44.

Klein, D. (2003). A brief history of american K-12 mathematics education. Mathematical

Cognition. Retrieved from Mathematical Cognition: http://www.csun.edu/~

vcmth00m/AHistory.html
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 110

Korn, J. (2014, September). Teaching conceptual understanding of mathematics via a

hands-on approach. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/view

content cgi?article=1501&context=honors

Le Fave, D. (2010, August 23). No child left behind and special education explained.

Retrieved from Philosophographlux: www.lefave.net/uncategorized/181/

Magid, A. (2015, November 9). Ending the math wars. Retrieved from Nondoc: https://

nondoc.com/2015/11/09/math-wars/

Marzano, R., & Pickering, D. (2005). Building academic vocabulary: teacher's manual.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

McLeod, S. (2015). Jean Piaget. Retrieved from Simply Psychology: www.simply

psychology.org/piaget.html

Mercer, C., & Pullen, P. (2008). Students with learning disabilities. New York, NY:

Pearson.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2012, September 20).

Eligibility criteria: emotional disturbance. Retrieved from Missouri Office of

Special Education Compliance and Indicators: https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/

files/800-ED.pdf

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2012, September 20).

Eligibility criteria: intellectual disability. Retrieved from Missouri Office of

Special Education Compliance Standards & Indicators: https://dese.mov.gov/sites/

default/files/1000-MR.pdf

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2012, September 20).

Eligibility criteria: language impairment. Retrieved from Missouri Office of

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 111

Special Education Compliance Standards & Indicators: https://dese.mo.gov/sites/

default/files/1500-Eligibility%20criteria-speech%20and-or%20langauge%20

impairment.pdf

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2012, September 20).

Eligibility criteria: learning disability. Retrieved from Missouri Office of Special

Education Standards & Indicators: https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/1400-

SLD.pdf

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2012, September 20).

Eligibility criteria: other health impairment. Retrieved from Missouri Office of

Special Education Standards & Indicators: https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/

files/1300-OHI.pdf

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2013). District report

card. Retrieved from Missouri comprehensive data system: https://mcdssecured.

dese.mo.gov/guidedinquiry/school%20report%20card/district%20report%20card.

aspx#P7ee26a357b0c425eae54b63e3ca6a36d_5_xA

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2013, September).

Missouri state plan for education. Retrieved from Missouri Department of

Elementary and Secondary Education: https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/se-

fs-partcstateplanproposed2014final.pdf

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2013). Special

education: child county by district. Retrieved from Missouri Comprehensive Data

System: mcds.dese.mo.gov/quickfacts/special_education.aspx
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 112

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2014). Identification and

Evaluation. Retrieved from Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education: https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/PartB-FinalRegulationIIII

dentificationandEvaluation.pdf

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2016). Missouri

department of elementary and secondary education. Retrieved from Missouri

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education: https://dese.mo.gov

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2001). The nation's report card:

Mathematics 2000. Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics:

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2000/2001517.asp

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2003, September). Mathematics

framework for the 2003 national assessment of educational progress. Washington

DC: Author.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983, April). A nation at risk.

Retrieved from Archived Information: www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for action. Retrieved

from NCTM: http://www.nctm.org/flipbooks/standards/agendaforaction/index.

html

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum standards for K-4.

Retrieved from Principles and Standards for School Mathematics: www.fayar.net/

east/teacher.web/math/Standards/previous/Currevstds/currstandk-4.htm

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for

school mathematics. Restin, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 113

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2011, July). A Position of the National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Retrieved from Intervention - national

council of teachers of mathematics: http://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-

Positions/Position-Statements/Intervention/

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to action: ensuring

mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2015). Principles, standards, and

expectations. Retrieved from National Council of Teachers of Mathematics:

www.nctm.org/standards-and-positions/principles-and-standards/principles,-

standards,-and-expectations/

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. (2010, June). Emotional

disturbance. Retrieved from National Dissemination Center for Children with

Disabilities: www.parentcenterhub.org/wp-content/uploads/repo_items/fs5.pdf

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. (2012, March). Other

health impairment. Retrieved from National Dissemination Center for Children

with Disabilities: www.parentcenterhub.org/wp-content/uploads/repo_items/fs15.

pdf

National Institute of Mental Health. (2016, March). Attention deficit hyperactivity

disorder. Retrieved from National Institute of Mental Health: http://www.nimh.

nih.gov/health/topics/attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder-adhd/index.shtml

National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up:helping children learn mathematics.

Washington D.C.: National Academic Press.

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 114

O'Connell, S. (2007). Introduction to problem solving. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

O'Connor, S., Wright, P., & Wright, P. (2015). Wrightslaw: all about IEPs. Hartfield,

VA: Harbor House Law Press.

Olsson, M. (2016). Autism spectrum disorder - first indicators and school age outcome.

Retrieved from University of Gothenburg: www.rikshaandboken-bhv.se/

dokument/avhandlingar,%20uppsatser%20och%20aktuellt/autism%20spectrum%

20disorder-first%20indicators%20and%20school%20age%20outcome-Martina%

20Barnevik%20Olsson.pdf

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2014). PISA 2012 results in

focus. Programme for international student assessment. Retrieved from https://

www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf

Pacer Center. (2015). Evaluation: what does it mean for your child? Retrieved from

Pacer Center: Action Information Sheets: www.pacer.org/parent/php/PHP-c2.pdf

Pearson. (2012). Technical Manual. Retrieved from http://www.aimsweb.com/wp-

content/uploads/aimsweb-Technical-Manual.pdf

Pearson. (2014). Math assessment for grades 2-8. Retrieved from AimsWeb: http://www.

aimsweb.com/assessments/features/assessments/match-concepts-applications

Phillips, C. (2014). The new math: a political history. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press.

Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it: a new aspect of mathematical method. Princetown, NJ:

Princetown University Press.

Project IDEAL. (2013). Intellectual disabilities. Retrieved from Project IDEAL: http://

www.projectidealonline.org/v/intellectual-disabilties/
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 115

Project IDEAL. (2013). Special education referral process. Retrieved from Project

IDEAL: http://www.projectidealonline.com/v/special-education-referral-process/

r4 Educated Solutions. (2010). Making math accessible to students with special needs.

Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Rockwell, S., Griffin, C., & Jones, H. (2011). Schema-based strategy instruction in

mathematics and the word problem-solving performance of a student with autism.

Focus Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 26(2), 87-95.

Schoenfeld, A. (2003, August 5). Math wars. Retrieved from Cornell University: http://

www.math.cornell.edu/~henderson/courses/EdMath-F04/MathWars.pdf

Sherman, H., Richardson, L., & Yard, G. (2013). Teaching learners who struggle with

mathematics: responding with systematic intervention and remediation. Long

Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Sousa, D. (2008). How the brain learns mathematics. New York, NY: SAGE

Publications.

Smith, & Angotti, R., A. (2012). Why are there so many words in math?: Planning for

content-area vocabulary instruction. Voices from the Middle, 20(1), 43-51.

Technical Education Research Center. (2008). Investigations in number, data, and space.

Glenview, IL: Pearson.

Terwell, J. (2011, May). Cooperative learning and mathematics education: a happy

marriage? Retrieved from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development: http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/48078491.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). President's commission on excellence in special

education. Jessup, MD: Education Publications Center.

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 116

U.S. Department of Education. (2010, November). Thiry-five years of progress in

educating children with disabilities through IDEA. Retrieved from United States

Department of Education: www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/idea35/history/

idea-35-history.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, &Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

(2010, November). Thirty five years of progress in educating children with

disabilities through IDEA. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education:

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/idea35/history/idea-35-history.pdf

Van de Walle, J., Karp, K., & Bay-Williams, J. (2012). Elementary and middle school

mathematics: teaching developmentally. New York, NY: Pearson.

Weiss, J. (2005, July 22). Back to basics through the years. Retrieved from Catalyst

Chicago: catalyst-chicago.org/2005/07/back-basics-through-years/
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 117

Appendix A

Special Education Teacher Interview Questions

1. What do you believe are the key components of this program?

2. Describe the implementation process for this program.
3. What skills did your students gain from this program?
4. Describe the effectiveness of the schema diagrams.
5. Describe the effectiveness of the FOPS checklist.
6. Describe the overall effectiveness of this program.
7. Describe your overall perception of this program.
8. Would you implement this program again? Explain.
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 118

Appendix B

General Education Teacher Survey

Schema-Based Strategy Survey

(General Education Teacher)

Please answer the statements below.

1. My student(s) used the schema-based strategy when solving math

word problems.

2. The schema-based strategy helped my student(s) solve math word

problems.

3. My student(s) is more confident when solving math word problems

now compared to the beginning of the school year.

4.
Describe the effectiveness of schema-based instruction:
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 119

Appendix C

Student Survey (3rd-5th Grades)

Circle the correct choice below.

1. The diagrams helped me solve math word problems.

2. The FOPS checklist helped me solve math word problems.

3. Change problems are easy for me to solve.

4. Group problems are easy for me to solve.

5. Compare problems are easy for me to solve.

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 120

Student Survey (6th-8th Grades)

Circle the correct choice below.

1. The diagrams helped me solve math word problems.

2. The FOPS checklist helped me solve math word problems.

3. Change problems are easy for me to solve.

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 121

4. Group problems are easy for me to solve.

5. Compare problems are easy for me to solve.

SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 122

Appendix D

Schema-Based Instruction Comparison Studies

Bhat,
Deatline- Gardill, Fede,
DiPipi Griffin
Buchmann, Hoff & Griffin, Pierce,
Researchers & &
Jitendra & Jitendra Jitendra, Matthews,
Jitendra Jitendra
Xin McGoey, & Wells
& Riley
Year 2002 2009 2005 1996 1998 2010
# of
4 60 22 3 34 32
Participants

Grade 8th 3rd Middle Elementary Elementary 5th

General Ed.
Special
Or Special Both Both Special Ed. Both Both
Ed.
Ed.

Disability LD LD LD & ED LD LD & ED LD & AU

Majority of
Day in
No No No No No No
Special
Education

Student
Growth in
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Problem
Solving

Students
Perceived
Yes N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes
SBI
Worked

Teachers
Perceived
Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
SBI
Worked

Ability to
Generalize Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A
SBI
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 123

Church,
Corroy, Adams,
Fang,
Huang, George, Griffin,
Griffin, Hartsell,
Kanive, Jitendra, Haria,
Researchers Jones, & Casner Herron,
Jitendra, Price, & Kaduvettoor,
Rockwell Mohn,
Rodriguez, Sood Leh, &
& Zhou
& Jitendra
Zaslofsky
Year 2013 2011 2010 2013 2015 2007
# of
136 1 2 21 4 88
Participants

4th &
Grade 3rd 4th 4th-8th 2nd 3rd
5th

General Ed.
Special Special Special
Or Special Both Gen. Ed. Both
Ed. Ed. Ed.
Ed.

AU,
ED, ID,
Disability NS AU ED N/A LD
LD, LI,
& OHI

Majority of
Day in
No No Yes Both N/A No
Special
Education

Student
Growth in
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Problem
Solving

Students
Perceived
N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A N/A
SBI
Worked

Teachers
Perceived
N/A N/A N/A Mixed N/A N/A
SBI
Worked
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 124

Ability to
Generalize N/A Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes
SBI
SCHEMA BASED INSTRUCTION MATHEMATICS 125

Vitae

Education

Educational Doctorate Degree in Educational Administration (Expected December 2016)

Lindenwood University

Educational Specialist Degree in Educational Administration (Spring 2012)

Lindenwood University

Master of Arts Degree in School Administration (Spring 2008)

Lindenwood University

Bachelor of Science Degree in Special Education (Fall 2005)

Fontbonne University

Certifications
Elementary Principal (K-8)
Special Education Administrator (K-12)
Elementary Education (1-6)
Special Education: Mild-Moderate Disabilities, Cross-Categorical (K-12)
Severe Developmental Disabilities (Birth-21)

Professional Experience
Elementary Principal July 2014- Present
Special Education Area Coordinator July 2011- June 2014
Special Education Administrative Intern August 2009-June 2011
Literacy Leader August 2008-June 2011
Special Education Teacher December 2005-June 2009
Applied Behavioral Analysis Paraprofessional June 2002-July 2005