Difference Not Deficit: Reconceptualizing Mathematical Learning Disabilities

Author(s): Katherine E. Lewis

Source: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 45, No. 3 (May 2014), pp. 351-396
Published by: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.3.0351 .
Accessed: 06/06/2014 15:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
2014, Vol. 45, No. 3, 351–396

Difference Not Deficit: Reconceptualizing

Mathematical Learning Disabilities
Katherine E. Lewis
University of Washington, Seattle

Mathematical learning disability (MLD) research often conflates low achievement

with disabilities and focuses exclusively on deficits of students with MLDs. In this
study I adopt an alternative approach using a response-to-intervention MLD classifi-
cation model and identify the resources students draw upon rather than the skills they
lack. The intervention model involved videotaped one-on-one fraction tutoring
sessions implemented with students with low mathematics achievement. This article
presents case studies of two students who did not benefit from the tutoring sessions.
Detailed diagnostic analyses of the sessions revealed that the students understood
mathematical representations in atypical ways and that this directly contributed to the
persistent difficulties they experienced. Implications for screening and remediation
approaches are discussed.

Key words: Dyscalculia; Fractions; Learning disability; Mathematical learning

disability

Many students struggle with mathematics, but not all students struggle for the
same reasons. For the estimated 6% of students with a mathematical learning
disability (MLD) (Shalev, 2007), their difficulties stem from a cognitive origin,
leading to qualitatively different error patterns than those experienced by their low-
achieving peers (Mazzocco, Devlin, & McKenney, 2008; Mazzocco, Myers, Lewis,
Hanich, & Murphy, 2013). Teachers are faced with the challenge of addressing the
unique learning difficulties encountered by students with MLDs without accurate
methods to identify students with MLDs or effective instructional supports.
Standard instruction is unlikely to benefit these students, as longitudinal studies
have demonstrated that the difficulties experienced by students with MLDs persist

This article was based on dissertation research at the University of California,

Berkeley, under the guidance of Alan H. Schoenfeld. Related work was presented
at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Foundation
and at the 2010 International Conference of the Learning Sciences. This research
was supported in part by a dissertation grant from the Spencer Foundation, the
National Science Foundation under grant No. ESI-0119732, and the Institute of
Education Sciences under grant R305B090026. The opinions expressed are those
of the author and do not represent views of the Spencer Foundation, the National
Science Foundation, or the Institute of Education Sciences. I would like to thank
Alan Schoenfeld, Darrell Earnest, Susan Empson, Lynsey Gibbons, Asha Jitendra,
Colleen Lewis, and the five anonymous reviewers for feedback on earlier versions
of this manuscript. I would also like to thank the research participants, in particu-
lar Lisa and Emily, for generously sharing their time and thinking with me.
Copyright © 2014 by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc., www.nctm.org. All rights reserved. This material may
not be copied or distributed electronically or in other formats without written permission from NCTM.

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
352 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

over years (Andersson, 2010; Geary, Hoard, Nugent, & Bailey, 2012; Mazzocco et
al., 2013). Understanding the nature of the difficulties faced by these students is an
essential first step toward the design of identification tools and alternative instruc-
tional approaches. In this article, I present detailed diagnostic case studies of two
adult students with MLDs. I focus on how and what each student understood about
the mathematics and refer to these analytically as understandings. In these case
studies, I identify the understandings the student relied upon and the ways in which
these understandings persisted and were incompatible with standard instructional
approaches. This study contributes an analysis of MLDs that addresses several of
the methodological challenges facing the field of MLD research.

Prior Research on Mathematical Learning Disabilities

Research on MLDs involves methodological challenges related to both the
identification of students with MLDs and the complexities of characterizing
learning disabilities in a hierarchical topic domain. Although there is agreement
among researchers that MLDs have a biological (i.e., cognitive) origin (Mazzocco,
2007),1 the field is still struggling with foundational issues around accurate iden-
tification of students. Currently there is no consensus on the operational definition
of MLDs (Mazzocco, 2007), and researchers often rely on achievement test score
thresholds (commonly the 25th percentile) to identify students with MLDs (Geary
& Hoard, 2005). This method alone cannot determine if a student’s low mathe-
matics test score is due to cognitive or environmental factors, and thus its use
results in overclassification of minority, low socioeconomic status, and nonnative-
English-speaking students in the MLDs group (Hanich, Jordan, Kaplan, & Dick,
2001). This conflation of low achievement and MLDs continues to be a central
challenge in the field.
In addition to these identification issues, prior research on MLDs has predom-
inantly focused on elementary-aged students’ speed and accuracy on written
assessments of basic arithmetic calculation. Because of this, the defining charac-
teristic of MLDs is often considered to be insufficient automaticity of arithmetic
number facts, such as “4 + 5 = 9” (e.g., Gersten, Jordan, & Flojo, 2005; Swanson,
2007; Swanson & Jerman, 2006). The predominant focus on performance deficits
in arithmetic calculation reduces mathematical cognition to the accurate and
efficient production of an answer and leaves unexplored many of the conceptual,
procedural, and representational issues core to mathematics. The few studies that
have begun examining MLDs in more complex mathematical domains have found
conceptual and representational issues—not difficulties with number facts—to
be central to the errors made by students with MLDs (e.g., Hecht & Vagi, 2010;
Mazzocco & Devlin, 2008). These studies suggest that MLDs should be

1Other researchers have argued for the social construction of disability (Gallagher, 2004; Mc-
Dermott, 1993; McDermott & Varenne 1995). Although this perspective—which distinguishes im-
pairment and disability (Baglieri, Valle, Connor, & Gallagher, 2011; Sherry, 2006)—is consistent
with my theoretical framing, the point made here is that researchers studying MLDs conceptualize
MLDs as having a cognitive origin.

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 353

considered in the context of more complex mathematical topics, which raises

methodological questions around how to investigate mathematics that cannot be
so easily reduced to measures of speed and accuracy.

Overview of the Present Study

In this study, I adopt an alternative approach that attempts to address the chal-
lenges facing the field and provides a new vantage point on MLDs. I avoid confla-
tion of low achievement and MLDs by selectively recruiting students and
employing a hybrid model of learning disability identification (Fletcher, Lyon,
Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007), which attempts to empirically evaluate the likelihood
that a student’s low achievement is due to something other than a disability (i.e.,
confounding factors, including: poor teaching, environmental causes, or affective
factors). This model requires that in addition to a student exhibiting low mathe-
matics achievement, which cannot be attributed to another factor, the student must
not benefit from a validated intervention—in this case, a series of tutoring sessions
focused on fractions that were effective for typically achieving students (Lewis,
2011). To move beyond an understanding of MLDs as deficits in basic calculation,
I conceptualize MLDs in terms of cognitive differences and identify those differ-
ences through a detailed analysis of the understandings a student relied upon when
attempting to learn fractions—a conceptually and representationally complex
topic. My intent was to identify what understandings are consequential (and some-
times detrimental) to the student’s learning of mathematics.
To this end, in the context of weekly tutoring sessions I explored the understand-
ings of fractions that emerged and persisted for students with MLDs. The purpose
of this study was to provide an in-depth analysis of the nature of the difficulties
experienced by students with MLDs. The tutoring data provided a rich context to
explore how the students with MLDs understood fractions, often in problematic
ways. In particular I was interested in investigating (a) what persistent understand-
ings were underlying each student’s difficulties and (b) what similarities, if any,
existed between the identified persistent understandings. This in-depth look at
two students with MLDs allowed for a view of MLDs beyond errors on outcome
measures and instead captured the MLDs in a learning context as it emerged.

Theoretical Framework
In this section I propose an alternative perspective of MLDs, which is grounded
in a Vygotskian theoretical perspective and informed by mathematics education
research on the teaching and learning of fractions.

Reconceptualizing Disability as Difference

Unlike prior research that has predominantly conceptualized MLDs in terms
of cognitive deficits (e.g., Geary, 2010), I conceptualize MLDs in terms of
cognitive differences. My perspective is derived from a Vygotskian perspective of
disability in which disabilities are understood to result in different paths of

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
354 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

development rather than deficient development (Vygotsky, 1929/1993). Students

with MLDs are understood to have biological (i.e., cognitive) differences that may
result in mathematical development unlike that of their peers. This theoretical
perspective highlights the importance of mediational tools in human development
and has implications for the methodologies used to study disabilities.
Mediational tools, which have developed over the course of human history, are
central to a sociocultural understanding of learning and development and must be
considered in the study of disabilities (Vygotsky, 1978). For students with disabil-
ities the mediational tools may be incompatible with the student’s biological
development (Vygotsky, 1929/1993). As illustrated in an extreme case, spoken
language is not accessible to a deaf child and therefore does not serve the same
mediational role to support the child’s development of language as it would for a
hearing child. In the case of students with MLDs, it is possible that standard
mathematical mediational tools (e.g., Arabic numerals, drawings, manipulatives),
which support the development of typically achieving students, may not be
compatible with how students with MLDs cognitively process numerical informa-
tion. These kinds of incompatibilities do not simply result in deficient develop-
ment; instead, the incompatibility results in the recruitment of alternative
resources and different developmental paths (Cole, Levitin, & Luria, 2006).
Therefore, students with MLDs may develop alternative understandings, particu-
larly around representations, which are different from (and inconsistent with)
canonical mathematical understandings.
Methodologies used to study individuals with MLDs should capture these
alternative understandings. Quantitative measures of an individual in terms of less
and more are inappropriate. In the same way that measuring a deaf child’s lack of
auditory receptiveness will not provide insight into his or her language develop-
ment, measuring only what a student with an MLD cannot do (i.e., errors) will not
provide insight into his or her mathematical development. Instead, measures
sensitive to qualitative differences must be employed. Diagnostic methodologies
involve starting with careful observations of the individual in which no a priori
analytic schemes are defined, as the researcher cannot know the shape that the
divergent developmental paths might take (Cole et al., 2006). Only through
repeated observations and iterative analysis can these differences be identified
and characterized (Cole et al., 2006).
In the context of MLDs, careful observations of the student engaged in attempts
to learn mathematics provides a venue to study how the student makes sense of
mathematics. Through repeated observations of the student it is possible to begin
to identify and characterize the student’s understandings (Schoenfeld, Smith, &
Arcavi, 1993). Given that persistent difficulties have been documented in students
with MLDs (Geary et al., 2012; Mazzocco et al., 2013), in this study it was impor-
tant to document the understandings that persisted. Therefore a central analytic
construct is persistent understanding. The attribution of understandings to an
individual is an inherently complex issue, and I make no claims about the cognitive
reality of attributed understandings. Instead, I adopt Schoenfeld’s (1998) model

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 355

of analytic attribution: I attribute an understanding to an individual if in that

instance the student behaves in a way that is consistent with that operationally
defined persistent understanding. The persistent understandings become analytic
tools with which to view the complexity of the moment-by-moment interaction
and look for patterns within the data.
In this study, MLDs are framed as cognitive differences, and the analysis
focuses on identifying the persistent understandings that a student relies upon in
the context of learning. It is expected that students with MLDs will have difficul-
ties that may be qualitatively different from those typically experienced by
students learning the topic and that these difficulties may revolve around their
understanding or use of mathematical representations.

Importance of Mathematical Representations

Representations are not only central to a Vygotskian perspective of MLDs but
are fundamental to the very practice of mathematics (Ball, 1993; Kaput, 1987).
Engaging with mathematics involves mastering a host of representations (e.g.,
symbols, diagrams, pictures) to navigate a mathematical context. Yet, a represen-
tation itself does not contain meaning; the meaning of the representation is a result
of the interpretation of the user (von Glasersfeld, 1987). Because of this inherent
subjectivity involved in the use of representations, how a student with an MLD
perceives and operates upon a representation might be quite different from how
students typically perceive and operate on that representation. For example, prior
research on students’ understanding of basic numerical symbols has suggested
that students with MLDs may have difficulty processing both symbolic forms,
such as “7” (De Smedt & Gilmore, 2011; Landerl & Kölle, 2009), and pictorial
forms, such as “” (Piazza et al., 2010), of numerical magnitude.
Therefore, studies of MLDs should carefully attend to the ways in which students
make sense of representations.

Mathematical Domain of Fractions

Although a student’s use of representations could be explored in any mathemat-
ical domain, I chose to focus on the extensively researched and mathematically
rich topic of fractions. Not only is an understanding of fractions essential for later
mathematical development (Bailey, Hoard, Nugent, & Geary, 2012; National
Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008; Siegler et al., 2012), but also research on
MLDs suggests that students with MLDs appear to have different learning trajec-
tories than low-achieving students, specifically in the context of fractions
(Mazzocco et al., 2013). A fraction is a number that can be expressed as a ratio a/b
when a and b are integer values and b is not equal to zero. I use the term fraction
rather than rational number because it represents the predominant notational form
used during the tutoring sessions.
For a number of reasons, fractions provide a mathematically rich terrain to
explore how students with MLDs make sense of mathematical concepts beyond

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
356 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

whole number competencies. Students must learn that the value of the fraction is
determined by the coordination of the numerator and denominator, which means
that fractions with larger numbers may actually be smaller (e.g., 17/100 < 1/2), that
there are multiple ways to write any fractional value (e.g., 1/2, 2/4, 3/6, etc.), and
that there is no next fractional value as there is with integers. In addition, students
must master a variety of representations used to visualize, manipulate, and make
sense of rational numbers (Lamon, 1996, 2007). Developing competency with
fractions involves procedural, conceptual, and representational understanding and
consequently is an ideal mathematical context in which to explore MLDs.
This study was limited to a part–whole understanding of fractions. A part–whole
understanding of fractions requires that students understand that the fraction repre-
sents a single value and that the value depends upon the relationship between the
(part) numerator and the (whole) denominator (Mack, 1990, 1995; Post, Wachsmuth,
Lesh, & Behr, 1985). Although rational numbers can take on a variety of interpreta-
tions (i.e., part–whole, quotient, ratio, operator, and measure), the part–whole under-
standing is the most commonly used interpretation for introducing fraction concepts.
It allows for a multitude of representational forms to be explored; and it is the most
thoroughly researched with respect to the teaching and learning of fractions.

Methods
The data collected for this study were used for two purposes: determination of
the student’s MLD status and diagnostic case study analysis. Students were
recruited for this study, and all data were collected before a classification deter-
mination was made. Only those students who met the MLD classification criteria
were included in the diagnostic analysis as case study participants (see Figure 1
for an overview of the design of the study).

Figure 1. Schematic overview of methods used in this study.

Participants
Eleven students with potential MLDs were selectively recruited from a local
middle school, high school, and community college based on self-nomination or
teacher nomination. In addition, typically achieving students were recruited to
evaluate the effectiveness of the tutoring protocol and empirically establish

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 357

expected learning gains from pretest to posttest. To ensure that the mathematical
content was appropriate for the typically achieving students, fifth-grade students
were recruited because, like the students with potential MLDs, these students had
prior experience with fractions but had not mastered the topics covered during the
tutoring sessions. The parents of all fifth-grade students at a local elementary
school received an email inviting their child to participate in a series of mathe-
matics enrichment tutoring sessions. All five students whose parents responded
and consented were included as comparison students.

Classification of students. I collected test scores, interview data, and pretest

and posttest scores (from the tutoring sessions) to evaluate whether the 11 students
met qualifications for having an MLD, defined as (a) low mathematics achieve-
ment, (b) no confounding factors that could explain the low achievement, and (c)
lack of response-to-intervention (Fletcher et al., 2007). Standardized test scores
were collected to establish that the student demonstrated low achievement (below
the 25th percentile) comparable to criteria used in other studies of MLDs (see
Geary & Hoard, 2005, for a discussion). To evaluate if the student’s low achieve-
ment could be due to a confounding factor, students were interviewed and asked
to ref lect upon the origin and cause of their difficulties in mathematics.
Confounding factors, correlated with low mathematics achievement, were consid-
ered exclusionary criteria for this study; these included lack of English fluency
(Halle, Hair, Wandner, McNamara, & Chien, 2012), low socioeconomic status
(Chatterji, 2005; Diversity in Mathematics Education Center for Learning and
Teaching [DiME], 2007; Jordan, Kaplan, Nabors Oláh, & Locuniak, 2006),
anxiety (Ashcraft, Krause, & Hopko, 2007), and behavior or attention issues
(Zentall, 2007).2
To evaluate the 11 students’ response-to-intervention, I compared their scores
from the pretest and the posttest given in the fraction tutoring intervention
(described below) to those of the fifth-grade students. The fifth-grade students
had an average gain of 15% from pretest to posttest and an average posttest score
of 84% (pretest mean = 68.7%, SD = 19.4%; posttest mean = 83.6%, SD = 12.6%).
A lack of response-to-intervention was defined as less than a 10% gain from
pretest to posttest and a posttest score at or below 60% (one standard deviation
lower than the average fifth-graders’ posttest score).
Out of the 11 students, nine students were excluded from the MLD classification
for one of several reasons: performance at ceiling on the pretest (n = 2), observed
or self-reported attention or behavior problems (n = 3), failure to complete all data
collection sessions (n = 1), or response-to-intervention (n = 2; e.g., substantial gains
from pretest to posttest suggesting that poor prior instruction was a possible cause
of their low mathematics achievement). Only two students, Lisa (a White,

2 These exclusion criteria are intended to ensure that the student’s low achievement is not
primarily due to a social or environmental factor. This does not mean that MLDs cannot cause anxi-
ety or behavior issues, nor that nonnative English speakers or students from low SES backgrounds
cannot have MLDs.

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
358 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

19-year-old community college student) and Emily (a White, 18-year-old recent

high school graduate),3 met all the qualifications for having an MLD (see
Table 1). These two students, although considerably older than the fifth-grade
students, scored within one standard deviation on the pretest but not on the post-
test. This suggests that they had similar prior understanding to that of the fifth-
grade students but did not similarly benefit from the tutoring protocol.

Table 1
Classification and Demographic Information for the Two Students with MLDs
Student Math Achievement Confounding factors Response-to-
intervention
Lisa Low None identified None (below
College placement Native English threshold)
test placed her in a speaker Pretest = 59%
remedial arithmetic Not low SES Posttest = 44%
class, which she No attention or Change = –15%
failed. (Standardized behavior issues
achievement test
scores not available.)
Emily Low None identified None (below
California state Native English threshold)
mandated STAR test speaker Pretest = 49%
mathematics score Not low SES Posttest = 54%
<25th percentile. No attention or Change = +5%
behavior issues
Note. Lisa was administered a truncated version of the pretest and the complete posttest. For the
comparison of pretest to posttest score, only items that had a corresponding pretest item were included.
On the complete posttest Lisa scored 34%, suggesting that the classification of “no response-to-
intervention” is warranted.

Data Collection
Data were collected during six weekly videotaped sessions with each student.
The student interview and pretest were administered in the first session, and the
posttest was administered in the last session.

Pretest and posttest. The videotaped pretest and posttest were administered
to all participants using a semi-structured clinical interview protocol (Ginsburg,
1997). The test was designed to cover the fraction concepts targeted in the tutoring
sequence (see Appendix A for pretest and posttest questions and scoring).

Tutoring sessions. I conducted four hour-long videotaped tutoring sessions with

each student focused on part–whole fraction concepts, building on research on
dynamic assessment (Campione & Brown, 1987) and teaching experiments

3All participant names are psuedonyms.

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 359

(Saxe et al., 2010; Steffe & Thompson, 2000). Given the short duration of the
tutoring intervention, the instructional goals were modest. Drawing upon Mack’s
(1990, 1995) tutoring studies, the instructional goals of the tutoring session were
(a) to build an understanding of fractional magnitude through supporting an
understanding of a fraction as a single value, which is determined by the relation-
ship between the numerator and denominator, and (b) to use manipulatives and
representations to explore the concepts of fraction equivalence and fraction
operations. An area model representation was selected as the primary represen-
tational tool for these sessions, given that students with MLDs have been shown
to have difficulties with number line representations of numerical magnitude
(Geary, Hoard, Nugent, & Byrd-Craven, 2008). These sessions were designed
based on prior research on the teaching and learning of fractions.
• Tutoring Session 1 involved the use of foam fraction pieces and focused on estab-
lishing the meaning of the numerator and the denominator (Armstrong & Larson,
1995; Hunting & Davis, 1991; Ni, 2001; Saxe, Taylor, McIntosh, & Gearhart,
2005).
• Tutoring Session 2 continued to build upon these concepts, explored the conven-
tions of representing fractions with drawn area models, and focused on the use
of area models to compare fractional amounts (Armstrong & Larson, 1995; Ball,
1993; Mack, 1993; Post et al., 1985; Saxe et al., 2010).
• Tutoring Session 3 addressed fair sharing in conjunction with area models to
explore equivalent fractions (Ball, 1993; Empson, 2001; Hunting & Davis 1991;
Lamon, 1996; Mack, 1993; Post et al., 1985; Saxe et al., 2005).
• Tutoring Session 4 focused on the use of manipulatives and area models to explore
fraction operation problems (Mack 1995; Steffe, 2003).
Throughout all the tutoring sessions, meaningful engagement with representa-
tions was a central objective. Explicit attention was paid to connecting the symbols
to their underlying referents (Hiebert, 1988), focusing upon explicitly establishing
the conventions of standard pedagogical representations of fractions (e.g., Saxe et
al., 2010). Following Lesh, Post, and Behr (1987), it was an instructional focus for
the student to consider both translations between representational systems (e.g.,
representing 2/3 in fractional notation and with an area model) and transforma-
tions within representational systems (e.g., using an area model to create an
equivalent fraction for 2/3).
To support these objectives, a tutoring protocol was developed in which the
problems were carefully sequenced to ensure that each question built upon previ-
ously established mathematical content (see Appendix B; for complete protocol
see Lewis, 2011). Similar to prior tutoring work, each question was conceptualized
as an opportunity for the student to learn and as a means of assessing the student’s
understanding (Gutstein & Mack, 1998; Mack, 1995). Because building upon the
student’s prior knowledge was central to these tutoring sessions, students were
asked to write a journal entry at the end of each session to create a record of what
he or she had learned.

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
360 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

It is worth noting that although the tutoring intervention was essential for the
MLD classification criteria employed in this study, the focus of this research was
not on the tutoring intervention itself. Instead, the videotaped tutoring sessions,
along with the pretest and posttest, provided a context in which the difficulties
that arose for the students with MLDs could be analyzed. That several fifth-grade
students benefited from this tutoring protocol suggests that this intervention
should be considered a reasonable learning environment.

Analytic Approach
For the two students classified as having MLDs, a detailed analysis of the
pretest, tutoring sessions, and posttest was conducted in an attempt to explore the
difficulties they experienced. All videotapes of the sessions were transcribed and
all artifacts were scanned. Each session was parsed into individual problems, each
of which began with the posing of a question and ended with the student’s answer.
I conducted a grounded (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) diagnostic analysis for each
student to generate analytic categories that capture the nature of the student’s
understanding (Schoenfeld et al., 1993). The goal was to identify the understand-
ings that contributed to the student’s difficulties. Therefore, in order to qualify as
such, a persistent understanding needed to occur across multiple sessions and at
least sometimes lead to an incorrect answer. Operational definitions for persistent
understandings were developed and refined through iterative passes through the
data, which is common in video analysis (Barron, Pea, & Engle, 2013). In this
case, the iterative analysis involved identifying candidate persistent understand-
ings, specifying inclusion and exclusion criteria, considering alternative explana-
tions, and attempting to identify counterexamples that would contradict the
proposed persistent understandings. This process involved considering alternative
hypotheses to explain the data and then reviewing the data to determine if each
hypothesis was supported or refuted.
My multiple roles in this study as both the tutor and the researcher warrants
discussion of the researcher-as-instrument (Jaworski, 1998) in which I, as the
researcher, was an active participant in the research process. Here, I describe how
I viewed each of these roles and attempt to be explicit about the decisions made in
the study design and analysis to mitigate bias that might arise from my multiple
roles. In my role as the tutor, my goal was to maintain fidelity to the tutoring
protocol and engage meaningfully with the student. Because the coding scheme
emerged from the analysis, in my role as the tutor I was not hampered with precon-
ceived notions of what form my analytic scheme might take. In my role as the
researcher, my goal was to capture in a comprehensive manner what contributed
to the difficulties that the student experienced. Because the tutoring sessions were
conducted before analysis began, it was with some distance that I was able to
analyze the video data. The video recording allowed for retrospective analysis of
whether or not specific features of the tutoring sessions or tutoring itself might
have contributed to any of the persistent understandings identified.
To ensure that my role as the tutor did not unduly shape my subsequent analysis

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 361

of the data, after the operational definitions of persistent understandings were

refined, a team of four coders, including myself, used these operational definitions
to code the data. Each tutoring session was coded by at least two coders with each
problem instance coded for correctness and evidence of any persistent understanding
(see Figure 2 for an illustration of the parsing and coding of problems). Reliability
for this coding was 95% (94.6% for Lisa and 95.4% for Emily). Any discrepancies

Figure 2. Illustration of the analytic process of problem instance parsing and coding for correctness and evidence of
persistent understanding.

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
362 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

were discussed in a research meeting with all four coders and were resolved by
watching the video from that problem instance and discussing whether there was
sufficient evidence in the video to warrant the attribution of the operational definition
(for a similar approach, see Schoenfeld et al., 1993). All discrepancies were resolved
using stringent criteria for coding—if one of the four coders was not convinced that
the episode matched the operational definition, it was not coded as such.
After the completion of the individual case studies, a comparison across cases
was conducted to determine if similarities existed between students. Persistent
understandings were considered to be similar if they led to similar errors. In addi-
tion, the video data collected with the typically achieving fifth-grade students were
content logged (e.g., each question answered was briefly summarized; see Sawyer,
2013) and selectively transcribed to evaluate whether any of the persistent under-
standings identified for either student with MLDs were evident in any of the fifth-
grade students and therefore could be attributed to the tutoring protocol itself. Data
from the fifth-grade students will be discussed with respect to the comparison of
case studies.

Results
Analysis of Cases
For each case study student, the analysis of the videotaped sessions revealed a
unique collection of persistent understandings. Six persistent understandings were
identified for Lisa (labeled L1 through L6), and six persistent understandings were
identified for Emily (labeled E1 through E6; see Appendices C and D for the
operational definition of each persistent understanding). First, I present an over-
view of analyses for both cases, including a graphic representation of their perfor-
mance across the sessions and a narrative description of the persistent understand-
ings identified for each student. The purpose of this section is to provide a
high-level view of each case and establish that the persistent understandings
provide a relatively comprehensive account of the difficulties experienced during
the sessions. Second, I provide a detailed view of one persistent understanding for
each student. Through transcript excerpts, I illustrate the persistent understanding
as it occurred in the tutoring context, I demonstrate how the persistent under-
standing was detrimental in the student’s attempts to reason about more complex
fraction concepts, and I illustrate the ways in which the understanding was robust.
Finally, I present a cross case comparison of Lisa and Emily, focusing on areas of
similarity in their persistent understandings and contrasting them with the typi-
cally achieving fifth-grade students. In particular, I identify how both students’
understandings led to common kinds of errors, which involved (a) focusing on the
fractional complement and (b) representing 1/2 by halving.

Overview of Case Studies

To provide a high-level overview of the case studies, the correctness of the
student’s answer and evidence of persistent understandings is illustrated in

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 363

Figure 3. Each vertical segment represents an individual problem instance, and

each problem instance is represented in chronological order. The number of prob-
lems in each tutoring session varied somewhat because the parsing of the data was
based largely on the student’s responses. This high-level view of the data provides
a sense of each student’s difficulties throughout the tutoring session (as illustrated
by the prevalence of the incorrect answers) and reveals that the persistent under-
standings occurred across all sessions and sometimes in combination.

Description of the Persistent Understandings

Below I provide narrative descriptions of the persistent understandings for each
student. These are intended to provide the reader with a sense of the variety of
persistent understanding demonstrated by the students during the sessions. Each
persistent understanding will be referenced by label (e.g., L1, which corresponds
to Lisa’s first persistent understanding) and illustrated with a graphic example.
Although some of these persistent understandings may appear similar to difficul-
ties that all students may experience when learning fractions, the goal here is not
to argue for the commonality of the persistent understandings but to provide a
comprehensive account of the persistent understandings that emerged in each of
the cases. Note that the description presented here is a gloss in which an area model
representation and example problem type is often used for illustrative purposes;
however, these persistent understandings occurred in conjunction with multiple
representational forms and across multiple problem types. Additional information,
including the operational definition and number of instances, is available in
Appendices C and D.

Lisa’s six persistent understandings. Six persistent understandings were iden-

tified in Lisa’s case, which involved the ways in which she understood, repre-
sented, interpreted, and manipulated representations of fractional quantity (see
Figure 4).

Emily’s six persistent understandings. Emily also experienced difficulties in

representing, interpreting, and manipulating fractional quantities (see Figure 5).
Although there was some similarity (that will be discussed later), the six persistent
understandings identified were not the same as Lisa’s.

Comprehensiveness of persistent understandings. For both Lisa and Emily,

the persistent understandings were often associated with problem instances in
which the student’s answer or explanation was incorrect. An analysis of all incor-
rect answers was conducted to determine if the persistent understandings identi-
fied for each student provided a comprehensive view of the student’s difficulties.
Indeed, most incorrect answers given during the tutoring sessions were associated
with at least one of the identified persistent understandings (82% for Lisa and 75%
for Emily). The remaining incorrect answers were further analyzed. These incor-
rect answers generally involved errors in counting or calculation, were

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 364

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM
Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

Figure 3. Problem-by-problem coding across all the data from the sessions with Lisa and Emily. Each vertical segment represents an individual
problem posed and answered during the sessions.
Katherine E. Lewis 365

L1: W hen drawing and then interpreting

fractions, she understood the shaded
region to be the “amount taken,” which
resulted in her sometimes incorrectly
attending to the fractional comple-
ment—the amount “left.”

L2: W hen interpreting the fraction 1/2, she

focused on the balance between parts,
and when drawing 1/2, she focused on
the partition line itself as the representa-
tion of 1/2.

L3: W hen interpreting or manipulating frac-

tional representations, she often over-
applied a discrete set model to contin-
uous models in which she ignored the
size of the parts and treated all parts as
if they were interchangeable.

L4: W hen comparing fractional amounts,

she would judge the magnitude of the
fraction based on the denominator or
numerator alone. For example, she
would incorrectly argue that 1/2 was
larger than 4/5 because halves were
larger than fifths.

L5: W hen drawing representations of frac-

tions, she experienced difficulty with
the mechanics involved in partitioning
the shape, which resulted in an incorrect
number of pieces or led her to incor-
rectly conclude that it was impossible to
divide a shape into an odd number of
pieces.

L6: W hen operating on representations of

fractions, Lisa would modify the repre-
sentations without attending to whether
or not the modification would alter the
fractional quantity involved (e.g., she
might rewrite 1/2 + 1/4 as 1/2 + 1/2).

Figure 4. Description and graphic illustration of Lisa’s six persistent understandings.

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
366 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

E1: W
 hen interpreting representations,
she would sometimes determine the
numerator value based on the
nonshaded pieces, particularly if
the nonshaded pieces comprised
the smaller part.

E2: W
 hen drawing fractions, she sometimes
understood the partitioning of a shape
to be the representation of the unit
fraction (e.g., 1/2 is represented by
partitioning a shape in 2 parts).

E3: W
 hen interpreting representations of
fractions, she sometimes understood
the fraction representation as comprised
of two parts—shaded and nonshaded—
rather than a part out of a whole.

E4: W
 hen comparing fractions, she would
attend to the number of pieces rather
than the size of the piece. For example,
she would argue that 1/4 is larger than
1/3 because 1/4 has more total pieces.

E5: W
 hen interpreting fractions, she
assumed that parts that perceptually
“looked like” quarters (involved an
angle close to 90 degrees) were equal to
1/4 and associated with the numeral 25.

Figure 5. Description and graphic illustration of Emily’s six persistent understandings.

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 367

E6: W
 hen constructing or interpreting
representations, Emily treated those
representations as if they were answers
to specific questions rather than
representations of quantity. This
often caused her to interact with her
own representations in a way that
was not connected to their underlying
meaning.

Figure 5. (Continued) Description and graphic illustration of Emily’s six persistent

understandings.

self-corrected by the student, or were lacking sufficient data to warrant classifica-

tion. No predominant reason surfaced to explain any subset of these errors for
either student. Therefore, the persistent understandings identified for each student
provided a relatively comprehensive account for the difficulties that the students
experienced during the tutoring sessions.

Detailed View of Persistent Understandings

To provide a detailed view of how the persistent understandings occurred in the
context of the sessions, excerpts are provided for one persistent understanding for
Lisa (L1: “taking”) and one for Emily (E1: “smaller part”). These excerpts are
presented with the purposes of (a) illustrating a prototypical instance of the persis-
tent understanding and its relationship to the operational definition, (b) providing
an example of how the persistent understanding was detrimental to the student’s
ability to make sense of more complex fraction concepts, and (c) illustrating that
this persistent understanding was robust and not easily resolved in the tutoring
intervention. This in-depth look at one persistent understanding for each student
will serve as background for the comparison of Lisa’s case and Emily’s case in the
subsequent section.

Lisa’s “taking” understanding. Lisa’s “taking” understanding involved an

instability in her understanding of representations of fractional quantity (specifi-
cally the numerator value). Recall that Lisa understood representations of fractions
in terms of an amount “taken” from the whole, which often caused Lisa to shift
her focus to the amount she understood to be “left.” Problems were coded as
indicative of a “taking” understanding if Lisa (a) used the words take, gone, or
missing (or any derivation) to refer to the numerator quantity; (b) used the word
left to refer to the fractional complement; (c) gestured or referred to the fractional
complement (represented by the nonshaded region of an area model or missing
fraction pieces) as the focal fractional quantity; (d) used shading to represent the
removal of pieces; or (e) interpreted a fractional quantity as the fractional

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
368 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

complement (e.g., interpreting a drawing of 3/4 as 1/4). There were 24 instances

of “taking” (5.5% of all problems), with most instances (91.7%) associated with an
incorrect answer.

A prototypical example. Lisa’s “taking” understand was evident in a problem

in which she was asked to compare the fractions 7/12 and 1/2. Although drawn
correctly (see Figure 6), Lisa interpreted her representation of 7/12 in terms of the
amount “left” and incorrectly determined that 7/12 was smaller than 1/2 (i.e., 6/12).

Figure 6. Lisa’s drawing of 7/12 in which she partitioned a shape into 12 pieces and then
colored seven of the pieces.

Lisa explained that for the fraction 7/12, “we would divide it into 12 pieces and
take seven of those.” As she attempted to determine if 7/12 was bigger or smaller
than 1/2 she referred to her drawing as a cake. “I mean, ok, so let’s say that this is
the cake [gestures back and forth over entire shape; see Figure 6] and seven pieces
are gone [makes sweeping motion over the shaded pieces].” This example was
consistent with a “taking” understanding because she described her drawing of
7/12 as “take seven of those” and referred to the shaded region as “gone.” As was
often the case, her “taking” understanding ultimately led to an incorrect answer.
During this particular problem, she had no difficulty determining the equivalent
fraction for 1/2 would be 6/12; however, she continued to believe that “the half”
was larger. This prototypical example highlights how shading was understood as
the amount taken, which was ultimately problematic.

“Taking” as detrimental to learning. Lisa’s “taking” understanding was conse-

quential in that it hindered her ability to engage with more complex fraction
concepts. In the previous example, her understanding of the shaded region as “gone”
was detrimental to her ability to compare fractional quantities. In this next example,
Lisa’s “taking” understanding became problematic when attempting to interpret an
equivalent fraction as she solved a fraction subtraction problem. In this example,
she attended to the nonshaded pieces and referred to them as the pieces “left.”
Lisa had begun solving the problem “7/8 – 3/4 =” by correctly drawing the area
models for both 7/8 and 3/4. She then determined that to subtract the quantities,
one would need to further partition the area model for 3/4. In the following excerpt,

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 369

she correctly partitioned the area model—creating a representation of 6/8—but

instead of attending to the six shaded pieces, she began attending to the two
nonshaded pieces.

Lisa: If I were to like switch this [gestures with pen down the horizontal middle
of the 3/4 area model; see Figure 7] like that, it would be two . . .
Tutor: OK, so let’s cut it in half like that.
Lisa: [Draws partition line] There would be two left? Or two out of, two-sixths
left. [Writes 2/6] No. I’m not sure [crosses out 2/6].

Figure 7. Lisa’s drawn representation for the problem 7/8 – 3/4 = .

Lisa began attending to the two nonshaded pieces even before drawing the new
partition line. After the partition line was drawn she restated her answer of “two”
in fractional form, “two-sixths left.” She herself had shaded the 3 pieces to repre-
sent 3/4, yet she interpreted the nonshaded pieces as indicative of the fractional
quantity. Although she crossed out her answer of 2/6 at the end of the excerpt, her
attention to the two nonshaded pieces persisted. She went on to interpret this
representation as 2/8 (nonshaded/total), explaining that “there’s eight . . . and then
two [points to two nonshaded pieces of area model 6/8; see Figure 7] of which
aren’t shaded in.” When I asked her what it meant if the pieces were not shaded
in, she said, “Ok, then that wouldn’t count” and quickly corrected her answer to
6/8 (shaded/total). After Lisa had correctly determined the value of the equivalent
fraction, she had no difficulty completing the rest of the problem and determining
that 7/8 – 6/8 would equal 1/8. Her main difficulty with this problem was therefore
her interpretation of the area model for 6/8.
This example highlights how Lisa’s “taking” understanding was invoked as she
attempted to solve a problem. Despite her ability to represent both fractions with
area models and repartition an area model to produce common-sized pieces, her
understanding of the shaded region as “taken” and nonshaded as “left” made her
reinterpretation of her area model problematic. As in this case, analysis across all
“taking” instances suggested that Lisa’s understanding of fractions, in terms of

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
370 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

an amount taken, appeared to disrupt her ability to build a more complete under-
standing of fraction equivalence, fraction comparison, and fraction addition. I now
turn to an exploration of why this kind of problematic understanding persisted
through the tutoring sessions and did not get resolved.
Robustness of Lisa’s “taking” understanding. Lisa’s “taking” understanding
recurred across sessions, despite the explicit instructional focus on representa-
tional conventions and attempts to address the “taking” understanding when it
occurred. As previously discussed, developing an understanding of representa-
tions of fractions was one of the central goals for these tutoring sessions. The
tutoring protocol introduced the primary fraction representations (i.e., area models
and fraction pieces) with explicit attention to identifying, discussing, and estab-
lishing the conventions used for each representation. One such activity involved
Lisa’s generation and iterative refinement of directions for interpreting area
models of fractions. At the end of this activity, Lisa’s directions read: “Count out
all portions of the fraction, then count all the shaded in parts, the shaded in part
is written on top.” The goal was to make explicit and to have the student articulate
conventions for interpreting area models. Although in this activity she demon-
strated evidence of a conventional understanding of the shaded region, this did
not prevent her “taking” understanding from surfacing later.
In addition to questions that were explicitly focused on representational
conventions, each time Lisa’s “taking” understanding was problematic during the
tutoring sessions, it was immediately addressed. For example, during the third
tutoring session, when Lisa’s tendency to attend to the nonshaded pieces became
evident (and began leading to errors), I asked Lisa to imagine the area model was
a picture of a cake. I asked her to think of colored frosting to help her conceptualize
the shading as a quantity that was there rather than gone. These strategies provided
local correction for her interpretation of fractions but did little to displace her
tendency to understand the shading as taken. After one such correction, on the
next problem she noted, “I keep imagining that this [pointing to the shaded pieces]
is being taken away.” This suggests that Lisa’s understanding of the shaded region
as “taken” was not resolved with a simple clarification and that it was robust and
central to her understanding of fractions.

Summary. Lisa’s “taking” understanding was persistent, detrimental to her

attempts to learn more complex fraction concepts, and resistant to instructional
attempts to address it. This persistent understanding, which caused her to attend
to the fractional complement, was problematic across the tutoring sessions and
presents some insight into why tutoring sessions—using standard representations
like these—were ineffective for her.
Emily’s “smaller part” understanding. Emily’s “smaller part” understanding
involved an instability in understanding and representation of fractional quantity.
Recall that her interpretation of fractional representations often involved assuming
that the numerator was represented by the smaller of the two parts (see Figure 5,

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 371

E1). Problems were coded as indicative of a “smaller part” understanding if Emily

interpreted a fraction representation based on the part composed of fewer pieces.
In addition, because her attention to the smaller part created ambiguity with
respect to how shading should be interpreted, problems were also coded as
“smaller part” if she interpreted the fraction as the fractional complement (corre-
sponding to the nonshaded or missing pieces), irrespective of whether it was the
smaller of the two quantities. There were 28 instances of “smaller part” (6% of all
problems), and most (79%) were associated with an incorrect answer or unan-
swered question.

A prototypical example of “smaller part.” Emily’s “smaller part” under-

standing was evident in the following example, which occurred at the beginning
of the third tutoring session. She had just correctly drawn a picture of the fraction
1/5 in which she shaded one piece. However, when I asked her to interpret a drawn
representation of the fraction 5/6, she attended to the nonshaded piece and inter-
preted the fraction as 1/6.

Tutor: So you’ve just drawn a picture of one-fifth. What if you were to look at
something like [draws rectangle partitioned into sixths with 5/6 shaded;
see Figure 8] that? What would you say that is a picture of?
Emily: That’s um. [Pause: 15 seconds] That’s one-sixth.

Figure 8. Emily’s drawn representation of 1/5 and the tutor’s drawn representation of 5/6.

Despite having drawn a correct area model for 1/5, she interpreted the area
model that I drew with respect to the nonshaded piece, which comprised the
smaller part. When I asked Emily to explain her answer, she said, “There’s like,
all, except one shaded.” For Emily, the fractional quantity was not consistently
determined by the shaded pieces. Instead, her understanding of the fractional
quantity was dependent upon the part with fewer pieces. Her correct drawing of
1/5 and her incorrect interpretation of 5/6 as 1/6 suggests that Emily’s under-
standing allowed for ambiguity in how area models were interpreted. Although
flexibility in use of representations is desirable (e.g., one must redefine the unit

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
372 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

when using area models to represent fraction multiplication), the ambiguity char-
acteristic of “smaller part” led to the fraction value being obscured. This episode
was considered consistent with a “smaller part” understanding because it involved
incorrectly interpreting the fractional representation in terms of the part with
fewer pieces. I will return to this example when I discuss the robustness of this
understanding.

“Smaller part” as detrimental to learning. Emily’s “smaller part” under-

standing hindered her ability to engage with more complex fraction concepts. In
the following example, a simple fraction comparison was problematic for Emily
because of her tendency to focus on the smaller part of her own drawn representa-
tions. In this problem Emily was asked to compare the fractions 2/8 and 5/8—a
relatively easy comparison, given that the denominators were the same in both
fractions. To solve the problem, she correctly drew a representation of both frac-
tions, using shading to represent the numerators. Once she drew these two repre-
sentations, she began interpreting 5/8 as 3/8 and attending to the nonshaded pieces
as indicated by her pointing to each nonshaded piece in her drawings.

Tutor: What if we had the problem, two-eighths and five-eighths, which one
would be bigger there?
Emily: [Writes 2/8 and 5/8. Draws 8 rectangles, shades in two. Draws 8 rectan-
gles, shades in 5, see Figure 9] So, this is . . . [points to each of the 5 shaded
pieces in drawing of 5/8. Points to each of the 3 nonshaded pieces of
drawing of 5/8] Um. [Writes 3/8. Points to each of the 6 nonshaded pieces
in the drawing of 2/8.] I don’t know [scribbles out 3/8]. I don’t know.

Figure 9. Emily’s written work for the comparison of 2/8 and 5/8.

Although Emily correctly represented both fractions, these drawings did not
support her comparison of the fractional amounts. Once she had completed the
drawings, Emily shifted from attending to the 5 shaded pieces to attending to

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 373

the 3 nonshaded pieces for 5/8 and interpreted her drawn representation as 3/8—
consistent with her “smaller part” understanding. It was only after pointing to each
of the nonshaded pieces in the fraction representation for 2/8 that she rejected her
interpretation of 5/8 as 3/8. It is possible that counting the nonshaded pieces, which
composed the larger part of 2/8, helped her recognize that counting the nonshaded
pieces was inappropriate. This example demonstrates how Emily’s tendency to
focus on the smaller part led to ambiguity with respect to how to interpret her own
representations and caused her to be unable to answer this relatively simple
comparison problem. As in this example, Emily’s “smaller part” understanding
of fractions appeared to disrupt her ability to build a more complete understanding
of fraction comparison, fraction equivalence, and fraction operations. I now turn
to an exploration of why this kind of problematic understanding persisted through
the tutoring sessions and did not get resolved.

Robustness of Emily’s “smaller part” understanding. Emily’s “smaller part”

understanding was sufficiently well entrenched that it resisted explicit attempts
to address it through standard instruction. Just like Lisa, in the second tutoring
session Emily had iteratively refined a list of rules for interpreting area models.
Her journal entry read: “rules: put the shaded # of pieces on the top. Put the number
of all pieces including shaded pieces on the bottom.” When we reviewed her
journal at the start of the third tutoring session, she explained her journal entry by
reading the rules and then she gave an example of the application of her rule to the
area model representation she had drawn for 1/5 (see Figure 8). Despite her
apparent focus on the shaded region to determine the fractional quantity, as seen
in the previous prototypical example, when I asked her to interpret an area model
of 5/6, she switched to attending to the smaller part (the nonshaded pieces). After
incorrectly determining that the answer was 1/6, she asked if she should be
applying the rules from her journal entry.

Emily: That’s um. [Pause: 15 seconds] That’s one-sixth.

Tutor: OK, so this one [pointing to area model of 5/6; see Figure 8] is going to
be one-sixth?
Emily: Wait, are we doing that? [Points to rules in journal]
Tutor: OK, if we were following your rules, would we end up with one-sixth?
Emily: No.
Tutor: What would we get if we were following your rules?
Emily: Uh, we would get. Uh, five [pause], five-sixths.
Tutor: So, how do we know whether this is a picture of five-sixths or this is a
picture of one-sixth?
Emily: I don’t know.

Although she was able to determine that the rules would specify the fraction value
was 5/6, she was unsure of which was the correct answer. Emily’s own method for

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
374 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

interpreting fractional representations was clearly at odds with the written rules
she had generated in the earlier session. Furthermore, these rules were insuffi-
cient to help her correct her answer; instead, she was unsure of which answer was
correct.
As the discussion continued, she eventually shifted to attending to the shaded
region and correctly interpreted the area model for 5/6. She explained, “Well, I
know that this is five-sixths, because it’s not one-sixth because, there’s like, six-
sixths is a whole, and that one would be shaded in [gestures as if shading the last
piece]. It’s just five-sixths, because only one isn’t shaded in. So it’s five-sixths.”
She used her understanding of the whole to make sense of the part of the repre-
sentation she should attend to. Although she had constructed a relatively articu-
late explanation, leveraging her understanding of a whole, this did not create a
lasting change in her interpretation of fractional representations. Despite
reviewing her journal at the start of the fourth tutoring session and immediately
before the posttest, Emily’s “smaller part” understanding continued to persist
and led to errors. This suggests that Emily’s understanding of the fraction as
defined by the smaller part was robust and resistant to instruction.

Summary. Emily’s “smaller part” understanding resulted in instability in the

way in which she conceptualized fractional quantity. This understanding was
persistent in that it occurred across sessions, detrimental in that it caused difficulty
for more complex fraction problems, and robust in that it persisted, despite instruc-
tional attempts to correct it. This persistent understanding resulted in ambiguity
with standard representational forms and provides some insight into why she did
not benefit from the tutoring protocol.

Comparison of Cases
Both Lisa and Emily demonstrated a unique collection of persistent understand-
ings that provide a relatively comprehensive view of the difficulties they experi-
enced in the tutoring sessions when considered together. There were some striking
similarities between Lisa’s case and Emily’s case. In this section, I consider the
similarity between cases, first discussing the similarities of Lisa’s “taking” and
Emily’s “smaller part” understandings, both of which involved a focus on the
fractional complement. Then I briefly present the second persistent understanding
for both Lisa and Emily, which involved understanding the fraction 1/2 as
“halving” rather than as the quantity 1/2. For each of these, in addition to providing
a comparison, I will draw upon the data from the typically achieving fifth-grade
students to highlight how these persistent understandings were not similarly
problematic for them.

Similarities of “taking” and “smaller part” understandings. Lisa’s “taking”

and Emily’s “smaller part” were distinct persistent understandings with unique
operational definitions. However, in both cases these persistent understandings
resulted in similar kinds of errors involving the student inappropriately focusing

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 375

on the fractional complement (i.e., the nonshaded pieces). This tendency to focus
on the fractional complement was not limited to area model representations,
suggesting that this was not simply a misunderstanding of the shading convention
used with area models. This persistent understanding also occurred when the
students used foam fraction piece manipulatives to create fractional quantities.
When using the foam fraction pieces, the numerator was represented with
physical objects, which one might expect would support an understanding of the
number of pieces as the focal fractional quantity. However, when interpreting
fraction pieces, both Lisa and Emily sometimes focused on the fractional comple-
ment: the missing pieces. For example, when Lisa was asked to interpret seven
1/10 pieces, instead of interpreting the fraction as 7/10, she cupped her hand
around the empty space and determined that “a third” would fit in the space.

Tutor: What fraction name would we give this whole amount that is here? [points
to seven 1/10 pieces; see Figure 10a]
Lisa: A third?
Tutor: And are you doing that just based on what it looks like, sort of?
Lisa: Yeah. A fourth? No. ’Cause, I mean how much is left? [Gestures with hand
around empty space; see Figure 10b]
Tutor: Yeah, we are missing—
Lisa: [Picks up 1/3 fraction piece, knocks pen off table] Whoa! Sorry.
Tutor: —some amount over here.
Lisa: Is a third? [Puts 1/3 piece in empty space; see Figure 10c] Yeah, a third
is missing.

Figure 10. Video screenshots in which Lisa interpreted seven 1/10 pieces in terms of the
missing space by filling it with a 1/3 piece.

To interpret the seven 1/10 pieces, Lisa focused on the empty space rather than the
fraction pieces. As with the nonshaded pieces of area models, Lisa used the term
left to refer to the empty space (i.e., fractional complement).
Emily also attended to the empty space when interpreting fraction pieces. In
Emily’s first interaction with the fraction pieces, I asked her to explain how the
fraction pieces were labeled. Although she assembled ten 1/10 pieces and correctly
identified the amount as “a whole,” she then removed a piece and incorrectly
interpreted the remaining 9/10 in terms of the missing piece.

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
376 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

Emily: So there are 10 of the same size pieces, and those all make up a whole [see
Figure 11a].
Tutor: OK.
Emily: So. Yeah. So, this [takes piece out and holds it in her fist; see Figure 11b]
if you take this out [moves fist away from pieces, continues to look at nine
1/10 pieces on table; see Figure 11c], then that is one-tenth.
Tutor: OK.
Emily: And yeah.
Tutor: OK, so if we take this out then this is one-tenth? [Points to nine 1/10
pieces]
Emily: This [pointing to empty space; see Figure 11d] is one-tenth.

Figure 11. Video screenshots in which Emily interpreted nine 1/10 pieces in terms of the
missing piece.

Although she had correctly identified the whole, when she removed one of the 1/10
pieces she named the fractional quantity in terms of the piece that was missing
(i.e., the empty space). This understanding persisted beyond the initial work with
the fraction pieces; when asked to interpret 7/10 in a later session, Emily attended
to and filled in the empty space, just as Lisa had done.
Lisa’s “taking” understanding and Emily’s “smaller part” understanding led to
similar kinds of errors across multiple representational forms. Both students
interpreted fraction representations as the fractional complement rather than the
fractional quantity. Therefore, these two persistent understandings, although
distinct, can be thought of as belonging to a high-order category: focus on the
fractional complement.

Comparison to fifth-grade students. The difficulties experienced by Lisa and

Emily can be contrasted with the performance of the fifth-grade students. The
persistent understanding was either absent in the fifth-grade students or, when it
occurred, was quickly and completely resolved. None of the fifth-grade students
experienced difficulties attending to the focal fractional quantity with area

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 377

models, and when asked to interpret seven 1/10 pieces, they all correctly identified
the representation as 7/10. Unlike Lisa and Emily, the fifth-grade students attended
to the focal fractional quantity and were able to use these representations to engage
with more complex fraction concepts.

Halving understanding. The second persistent understanding that was similar

for both Lisa and Emily was “halving.” Although there were subtle differences
between the operational definitions—Lisa’s understanding involved seeing “one-
half as balance” and Emily’s understanding involved seeing “quantity as parti-
tions”—both can be thought of as a “halving” understanding. A “halving” under-
standing involved representing and understanding the fraction 1/2 not as a quantity
but as the act of partitioning or the balance between parts. This persistent under-
standing can be best illustrated by Lisa’s and Emily’s answers to the posttest ques-
tions in which they were asked to draw or write 1/2. Both drew several different
shapes (see Figure 12) that were partitioned in half and omitted the standard shading
of one of the two pieces.

Figure 12. Written work of Lisa’s and Emily’s representations of 1/2 at the time of the
posttest.

When asked to explain why the nonshaded halved shape represented 1/2, Emily
explained, “Well, this is one [traces with pen around the circle]. And it’s cut in
half, and there is two [points with pen back and forth between the two pieces].”
This excerpt highlights that her understanding of 1/2 involved the partitioning of
the shape and the balance between the pieces rather than the fractional quantity—
one out of the two total pieces. Similarly, Lisa used gestures when explaining why
a nonshaded shape split in two was equivalent to 1/2; she said, “I just automatically
saw something that was [chopping gesture with hand].” Her chopping gesture
suggests that she was thinking of the action of “halving” as opposed to the
quantity 1/2. Both Lisa and Emily drew 1/2 without shading and understood 1/2
as the process of splitting something in two pieces, embodied by the partition line.

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
378 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

The persistent “halving” understanding was problematic for both students in

their representation of 1/2 and in the context of more complex fraction concepts.
This halving understanding surfaced 15 times for Lisa (3% of all problems) and
15 times for Emily (3% of all problems) over the course of the tutoring sessions
and was often associated with an incorrect answer (67% of cases for Lisa and 87%
of cases for Emily).

Comparison of fifth-grade students. Lisa and Emily’s persistent “halving”

understanding can be contrasted with the understanding exhibited by the fifth-
grade students. At the time of the posttest the fifth-grade students’ representa-
tions of 1/2 all highlighted the fractional quantity (see Figure 13). Almost all the
students used shading, and when shading was omitted, the quantity was labeled,
clearly signifying a focus on one of the two parts. The explanations given by the
fifth-grade students clearly focused on the amount 1/2 rather than the parti-
tioning action. Unlike Lisa and Emily, the fifth-grade students produced repre-
sentations that indicate the quantity 1/2 is central to their understanding of the
fraction 1/2.

Figure 13. Fifth-grade comparison student’s representations of 1/2 at the time of the
posttest—all of which included shading or labeling of the focal fractional quantity.

Discussion
Neither Lisa nor Emily benefited from a tutoring protocol that was effective for
typically achieving fifth-grade students. Underlying the difficulties the students
experienced was a collection of persistent understandings. In this section, I explore
two different explanatory frames that can be brought to bear on these findings.
First, I discuss the findings with respect to prior research on MLDs. In doing so,
I am necessarily engaging with how MLDs are typically framed—from a deficit-
model perspective. I address both the consistency of these findings with prior work
and the limitations of this explanatory frame. Second, I reframe the presumed
cognitive deficit as difference within a Vygotskian explanatory frame. From this
perspective, the student’s difficulties can be understood as resulting from the
inaccessibility of mediational tools. Third, building from this reconceptualization
of MLDs, I consider the implications for the identification and remediation of
MLDs. Finally, I discuss the limitations of the present study and the need for future
research.

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 379

Relationship to Prior Research on MLDs

The persistent understandings identified for Lisa and Emily are consistent with,
and elaborate upon, the kinds of conceptual and representational issues identified
for students with MLDs in the context of fractions (Hecht & Vagi, 2010; Mazzocco
& Devlin, 2008). Furthermore, these findings are consistent with the predominant
hypothesis that MLDs originate from a domain-specific number processing deficit
that involves an inability to mentally represent and manipulate numbers
(Butterworth & Reigosa-Crespo, 2007). The two persistent understandings—
“fractional complement” and “halving”—can be framed as originating from the
student’s inability to process or manipulate fractional quantities. “Fractional
complement” may reflect an instability in understanding a fraction as a fixed
quantity because the fraction itself could transform through the act of representing
it (i.e., the student’s drawing of 3/4 could subsequently be interpreted as 1/4).
Similarly, “halving” involved a focus on the act of splitting a shape rather than on
the quantity 1/2. This is particularly notable given that even children as young as
four years old have been shown to have an intuitive understanding of the fraction
1/2 (Hunting, Davis, & Bigelow, 1991; Hunting & Davis, 1991). Therefore, the
persistent understandings can be thought of as reflecting (and possibly caused by)
the student’s inability to mentally represent and manipulate numbers.
Although this deficit model provides a reasonable explanatory frame for the
data, the derived implications of this frame do not provide sufficient traction on
methodological issues facing the field, specifically regarding identification and
remediation. Conceptualizing MLDs as a cognitive deficit does not address how
identification methods might differentiate the impaired processing of a student
with an MLD from a student who has low mathematics achievement due to other
causes. Nor does it offer avenues to consider with remediation, because the deficit
perspective implies an intractability of these cognitively based deficits. In sum,
although these findings can be subsumed within prior research on MLDs, the
implications afforded by this explanatory deficit frame are limited.

Reconceptualizing MLDs as Difference

The hypothesized cognitive deficit can be recast from a Vygotskian perspective.
The proposed inability to mentally represent and manipulate quantities would
create an incompatibility between the student and mediational tools intended to
represent quantity. Because of this, a student may have qualitative differences in
his or her understanding of these mediational tools and may understand a repre-
sentation intended to represent quantity as something other than quantity. Quantity
is most clearly absent in the case of halving. Lisa and Emily represented the frac-
tion 1/2 by drawing a shape and splitting it in two pieces. Rather than representing
the quantity 1/2 in the drawing (i.e., one out of two total pieces), they represented
by the splitting action. Both students identified the splitting itself as the represen-
tation of 1/2. Similarly, “fractional complement” can be thought of as using
shading to represent something other than quantity. Lisa understood the shading

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
380 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

of an area model as an amount “taken”—reflecting a removal action rather than

a focal quantity. Although Emily did not represent a “taking” action in the same
way as Lisa, her representative act produced something that was not the fractional
quantity she drew. Therefore, she too appeared to represent something other than
fractional quantity. It is not merely that Lisa and Emily could not mentally repre-
sent and manipulate quantity, but when given a representation of quantity, they
understood it in unconventional and atypical ways. From a Vygotskian perspec-
tive, this atypicality is expected and reflective of the incompatibilities between
the student’s cognitive processing and the mediational tools intended to support
an understanding of fractional quantity.

Ineffectiveness and Inaccessibility of the Tutoring Protocol

Atypical ways of understanding representations of fractional quantity may
have contributed to the ineffectiveness of the tutoring protocol for Lisa and Emily.
Their persistent understandings can be thought of as incompatible with the
assumptions upon which the tutoring intervention was based, namely that math-
ematical representations can be used to represent and manipulate quantities. The
tutoring intervention was designed for students to engage with the meaning of
these representations by exploring the conventions governing their use. After
establishing conventions, new fraction concepts were introduced with heavy
reliance upon representations. For the fifth-grade students, these representations
did provide students with the needed supports for them to benefit from this kind
of intervention. For Lisa and Emily, the representations were ineffective.
Understanding MLDs through the Vygotskian explanatory frame suggests that
MLDs may be most appropriately conceptualized in terms of inaccessibility of
mediational tools, which has direct implications for both identification and reme-
diation approaches.

Identification. The commonality between some of Lisa’s and Emily’s persistent

understandings suggests that the inaccessibility may manifest for students with
MLDs in some consistent ways. In addition, given that each of the persistent
understandings was evident before the tutoring sessions (on the pretest), it may be
possible to identify these kinds of atypicalities in students with a pencil-and-paper
assessment. Group-based screening measures that include questions to elicit
particular persistent understandings (e.g., Draw a picture of 1/2.), particularly
those common to both students, could be developed. This kind of measure would
allow for an alternative approach to screen students for MLDs because it involves
looking for specific (potential) markers of MLDs rather than simply operationally
defining MLDs as low mathematics achievement. Although the detailed case
studies reported in this article cannot capture the range of persistent understand-
ings that could occur for students with MLDs, they do provide a starting point for
considering alternative screening assessments. It remains an open empirical ques-
tion what other persistent understandings should be assessed and targeted in this
kind of screening assessment.

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 381

Remediation. The persistent understandings identified for Lisa and Emily have
implications for how one might design remediation for students with MLDs. The
failure of standard mathematics instruction, both in the tutoring intervention and
in their years of schooling, suggests that students with MLDs do not simply need
more instruction but may in fact need different kinds of instruction. If standard
instructional representations are inaccessible for students with MLDs, it follows
that remediation must provide mediational tools that are accessible. Remediation
will be just that, a re-mediation (Gutiérrez, Morales, & Martinez, 2009), by
providing alternative mediational tools that account for and build upon a student’s
persistent understandings. For example, a re-mediation might build upon Lisa’s
“taking” understanding and make use of space, movement, and physical weight to
help the student maintain focus on the focal fractional quantity. Rather than the
standard representation of an area model in which a shape is drawn, partitioned,
and shaded to indicate the fractional quantity, the student could begin with a
physical whole (e.g., index card), then partition that whole into parts and physically
“take” the focal fractional quantity and move it to a measuring space. How might
the movement, space, and weight help the student focus on the fractional quantity
taken rather than the amount left? Permitting the student to physically move (i.e.,
take) the desired quantity would allow her persistent understanding of “taking” to
be a productive component of her construction of the fraction representation.
Designating a space where the quantity is moved to and then measured may enable
the student to reorient and focus on the taken quantity as the focal amount. This
kind of re-mediation would build upon a student’s persistent understandings and
repurpose those understandings through alternative mediational tools. Although
the Vygotskian framing suggests exciting new directions to pursue in screening
and remediation, future research is needed to evaluate the feasibility and effective-
ness of these approaches, which are based upon students’ persistent understandings.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

Several limitations of the present study should be acknowledged, and each of
these limitations highlights productive avenues to consider in future research.
First, the tutoring protocol was evaluated with fifth-grade students before clas-
sifying the students with MLDs. The selection of younger students to evaluate the
effectiveness of the tutoring protocol, although necessary to avoid ceiling effects,
raises questions about the comparison of younger and older students. It is possible
that the fifth-grade students who had more recent exposure to introductory frac-
tions content may have been better positioned to benefit from the tutoring inter-
vention than the two adult students with MLDs. It is worth noting, however, that
two other students with potential MLDs (one college and one middle school
student) also benefited from the tutoring protocol, which suggests that the tutoring
protocol was effective not just for younger students. Future research should
consider whether the kinds of persistent understandings noted in Lisa and Emily
occur with students with MLDs who are younger, particularly because early
intervention for MLDs is essential (Gersten et al., 2005).

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
382 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

Second, the persistent understandings that emerged from this analysis were tied
to the specific intervention used in this study. The video record of the intervention
was the analytic window through which the student’s mathematical learning was
viewed. Consequently, the intervention itself dramatically shaped the nature of
the persistent understandings that emerged. Because the intervention was focused
on a part–whole understanding of area model representations, it remains an open
question whether these same persistent understandings would occur in the context
of a number line model or whether a different intervention would give rise to a
different set of persistent understandings for these students. Future research should
consider how other representational modalities might address or elicit other kinds
of persistent understandings.
Third, this kind of analysis of student thinking invites alternative interpretations.
Although a particular instance of a persistent understanding may be explained with
an alternative interpretation (e.g., a student was using a ratio model of fractions rather
than a part–whole model), these persistent understandings were derived largely from
what the student said or explained about her own thinking. In addition to acknowl-
edging the student’s own authority, the triangulation of the student’s solution
process, explanation, gestures, and written work along with the recurrence of the
persistent understandings was taken as sufficient warrant to support this interpreta-
tion of the data. The analytic machinery of persistent understandings was aligned
with the goals of this study and provided some insight into the character of the MLDs
for these students. However, the delineation and focus on persistent understandings
is just one analytic frame through which to view MLDs. Because this is one of the
first studies attempting to recast MLDs from a non-deficit perspective, more
research is clearly needed to support a generative dialogue about the nature of MLDs.
For example, research that focused on classifying the character of the explanation
in terms of process or object (Sfard & Linchevski, 1994) may yield different insights
into the nature of the difficulties experienced by the students. Indeed, several of the
persistent understandings discussed in this article (e.g., “taking” and “halving”)
seem processual in nature, but future research is needed to determine if this kind of
analysis would challenge or extend the findings presented here.

Conclusion
This study provided an in-depth analysis of two students with MLDs. Individual
diagnostic analyses were used to consider how MLDs may manifest across
students in similar ways. Two students with MLDs displayed similar persistent
understandings that reflected an underlying difficulty conceptualizing fractional
quantity. These differences in understanding of fractional quantity, supported by
the evidence of the ineffectiveness of the tutoring protocol for Lisa and Emily,
suggest that representations of quantity may be inaccessible for students with
MLDs. This provides an alternative vantage point for considering the qualitative
differences that characterize MLDs. This work represents a first step toward the
reconceptualization of MLDs in terms of difference and toward more accurate
identification and alternative remediation approaches.

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 383

References
Andersson, U. (2010). Skill development in different components of arithmetic and basic cognitive
functions: Findings from a 3-year longitudinal study of children with different types of learning
difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 115–134. doi:10.1037/a0016838
Armstrong, B. E., & Larson, C. N. (1995). Students’ use of part-whole and direct comparison strate-
gies for comparing partitioned rectangles. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(1),
2–19. doi:10.2307/749225
Ashcraft, M. H., Krause, J. A., & Hopko, D. R. (2007). Is math anxiety a mathematical learning dis-
ability? In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The
nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 329–348). Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Ball, D. L. (1993). Halves, pieces, and twoths: Constructing and using representational contexts in
teaching fractions. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers: An
integration of research (pp. 157–195). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baglieri, S., Valle, J. W., Connor, D. J., & Gallagher, D. J. (2011). Disability studies in education: The
need for a plurality of perspectives on disability. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 267–278.
doi:10.1177/0741932510362200
Bailey, D. H., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Geary, D. C. (2012). Competence with fractions predicts
gains in mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(3), 447–455.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.06.004
Barron, B. J. S., Pea, R., & Engle, R. A. (2013). Advancing understanding of collaborative learning
with data derived from video records. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M.
O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 203–219). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Butterworth, B., & Reigosa-Crespo, V. (2007). Information processing deficits in dyscalculia. In D.
B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and
origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 65–81). Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes.
Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In
C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential
(pp. 82–115). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Chatterji, M. (2005). Achievement gaps and correlates of early mathematics achievement: Evidence
from the ECLS K–first grade sample. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(46). Retrieved from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n46/
Cole, M., Levitin, K., & Luria, A. (2006). The autobiography of Alexander Luria. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates.
De Smedt, B., & Gilmore, C. K. (2011). Defective number module or impaired access? Numerical
magnitude processing in first graders with mathematical difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 108(2), 278–292. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.09.003
Diversity in Mathematics Education Center for Learning and Teaching. (2007). Culture, race, power,
and mathematics education. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 405–433). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Empson, S. B. (2001). Equal sharing and the roots of fraction equivalence. Teaching Children Math-
ematics, 7(7), 421–425. doi:10.2307/41197637
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identi-
fication to intervention. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Gallagher, D. J. (2004). Entering the conversation: The debate behind the debates in special education.
In D. J. Gallagher, L. Heshusius, R. P. Iano, & T. M. Skrtic (Eds.), Challenging orthodoxy in special
education: Dissenting voices (pp. 3–26). Denver, CO: Love.
Geary, D. C. (2010). Mathematical disabilities: Reflections on cognitive, neuropsychological,
and genetic components. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(2), 130–133. doi:10.1016
/j.lindif.2009.10.008
Geary, D. C., & Hoard, M. K. (2005). Learning disabilities in arithmetic and mathematics: Theoreti-
cal and empirical perspectives. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition
(pp. 253–267). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
384 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Bailey, D. H. (2012). Mathematical cognition deficits in
children with learning disabilities and persistent low achievement: A five year prospective study.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 206–223. doi:10.1037/a0025398
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2008). Development of number line
representations in children with mathematical learning disability. Developmental Neuropsychology,
33(3), 277–299. doi:10.1080/87565640801982361
Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students
with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 293–304. doi:10.1177/0022
2194050380040301
Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). Entering the child’s mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and
practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative re-
search. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Gutstein, E., & Mack, N. K. (1998). Learning about teaching for understanding through the study of
tutoring. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(4), 441–465. doi:10.1016/S0732-3123(99)00005-X
Gutiérrez, K. D., Morales, P. Z., & Martinez, D. C. (2009). Re-mediating literacy: Culture, difference,
and learning for students from nondominant communities. Review of Research in Education, 33(1),
212–245. doi:10.3102/0091732X08328267
Halle, T., Hair, E., Wandner, L., McNamara, M., & Chien, N. (2012). Predictors and outcomes of
early versus later English language proficiency among English language learners. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 27(1), 1–20. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.07.004
Hanich, L. B., Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., & Dick, J. (2001). Performance across different areas of
mathematical cognition in children with learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology,
93(3), 615–626. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.615
Hecht, S. A., & Vagi, K. J. (2010). Sources of group and individual differences in emerging fraction
skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 843–859. doi:10.1037/a0019824
Hiebert, J. (1988). A theory of developing competence with written mathematical symbols. Educa-
tional Studies in Mathematics, 19(3), 333–355. doi:10.1007/BF00312451
Hunting, R. P., & Davis, G. E. (1991). Dimensions of young children’s conceptions of the fraction
one half. In R. P. Hunting & G. Davis (Eds.), Early fraction learning (pp. 27–53). New York, NY:
Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-3194-3_3
Hunting, R. P., Davis, G., & Bigelow, J. C. (1991). Higher order thinking in young children’s en-
gagements with a fraction machine. In R. P. Hunting & G. Davis (Eds.), Early fraction learning
(pp. 73–90). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-3194-3_5
Jaworski, B. (1998). The centrality of the researcher: Rigor in a constructivist inquiry into mathemat-
ics teaching. In A. Teppo (Ed.), Qualitative research methods in mathematics education (JRME
Monograph No. 9) (pp. 112–127). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
doi:10.2307/749950
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Nabors Oláh, L., & Locuniak, M. N. (2006). Number sense growth in
kindergarten: A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for mathematics difficulties. Child
Development, 77(1), 153–175. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00862.x
Kamii, C., & Clark, F. B. (1995). Equivalent fractions: Their difficulty and educational implications.
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14(4), 365–378. doi:10.1016/0732-3123(95)90035-7
Kaput, J. J. (1987). Towards a theory of symbol use in mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of
representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 159–195). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lamon, S. J. (1996). The development of unitizing: Its role in children’s partitioning strategies. Jour-
nal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(2), 170–193. doi:10.2307/749599
Lamon, S. J. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework
for research. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (Vol. 1, pp. 629–668). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Landerl, K., & Kölle, C. (2009). Typical and atypical development of basic numerical skills in el-
ementary school. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103(4), 546–565. doi:10.1016/j.
jecp.2008.12.006

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 385

Lewis, K. E. (2011). Toward a reconceptualization of mathematical learning disabilities: A focus on

difference rather than deficit (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (UMI No. 3555785)
Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in
mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representations in the
teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mack, N. K. (1990). Learning fractions with understanding: Building on informal knowledge. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 16–32. doi:10.2307/749454
Mack, N. K. (1993). Learning rational numbers with understanding: The case of informal knowledge.
In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers: An integration of re-
search (pp. 85–105). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mack, N. K. (1995). Confounding whole-number and fraction concepts when building on informal
knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(5), 422–441. doi:10.2307/749431
Mazzocco, M. M. M. (2007). Defining and differentiating mathematical learning disabilities and dif-
ficulties. In D. B. Berch, & M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children?
The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 29–48). Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Devlin, K. T. (2008). Parts and “holes”: Gaps in rational number sense
among children with vs. without mathematical learning disabilities. Developmental Science, 11(5),
681–691. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00717.x
Mazzocco, M. M. M., Devlin, K. T., & McKenney, S. J. (2008). Is it a fact? Timed arithmetic perfor-
mance of children with mathematical learning disabilities (MLD) varies as a function of how MLD
is defined. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33(3), 318–344. doi:10.1080/87565640801982403
Mazzocco, M. M. M., Myers, G. F., Lewis, K. E., Hanich, L. B., & Murphy, M. M. (2013). Lim-
ited knowledge of fraction representations differentiates middle school students with mathematics
learning disability (dyscalculia) versus low mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 115(2), 371–387. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.01.005
McDermott, R. (1993). The acquisition of a child by a learning disability. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave
(Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 269–305). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511625510.011
McDermott, R., & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture as disability. Anthropology & Education Quarterly,
26(3), 324–348. doi:10.1525/aeq.1995.26.3.05x0936z
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: Final report of the National
Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf
Ni, Y. (2001). Semantic domains of rational numbers and the acquisition of fraction equivalence. Con-
temporary Educational Psychology, 26(3), 400–417. doi:10.1006/ceps.2000.1072
Piazza, M., Facoetti, A., Trussardi, A. N., Berteletti, I., Conte, S., Lucangeli, D., . . . Zorzi, M. (2010).
Developmental trajectory of number acuity reveals a severe impairment in developmental dyscal-
culia. Cognition, 116(1), 33–41. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.012
Post, T. R., Wachsmuth, I., Lesh, R., & Behr, M. J. (1985). Order and equivalence of rational num-
bers: A cognitive analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(1), 18–36.
doi:10.2307/748970
Sawyer, R. K. (2013). Qualitative methodologies for studying small groups. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C.
A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative
learning (pp. 126–148). New York, NY: Routledge.
Saxe, G. B., Earnest, D., Sitabkhan, Y., Haldar, L. C., Lewis, K. E., & Zheng, Y. (2010). Supporting
generative thinking about the integer number line in elementary mathematics. Cognition and In-
struction, 28(4), 433–474. doi:10.1080/07370008.2010.511569
Saxe, G. B., Taylor, E. V., McIntosh, C., & Gearhart, M. (2005). Representing fractions with stan-
dard notation: A developmental analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(2),
137–157.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching-in-context. Issues in Education, 4(1), 1–94.
doi:10.1016/S1080-9724(99)80076-7

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
386 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P., III, & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one
student’s evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances
in instructional psychology (pp. 55–175). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and the pitfalls of reification: The case of algebra. Edu-
cational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2-3), 191–228. doi:10.1007/BF01273663
Shalev, R. S. (2007). Prevalence of developmental dyscalculia. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco
(Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning
difficulties and disabilities (pp. 49–60). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Sherry, M. (2006). If I only had a brain: Deconstructing brain injury. New York, NY: Routledge.
Siegler, R. S., Duncan, G. J., Davis-Kean, P. E., Duckworth, K., Claessens, A., Engel, M., . . . Chen,
M. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23(7),
691–697. doi:10.1177/0956797612440101
Steffe, L. P. (2003). Fractional commensurate, composition, and adding schemes: Learning trajec-
tories of Jason and Laura: Grade 5 [Special Issue: Fractions, Ratio and Proportional Reasoning,
Part B]. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(3), 237–295. doi:10.1016/S0732-3123(03)00022-1
Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles
and essential elements. In R. Lesh & A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and sci-
ence education (pp. 267–307). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Swanson, H, L. (2007). Cognitive aspects of math disabilities. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco
(Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning
difficulties and disabilities (pp. 133–146). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Swanson, H. L., & Jerman, O. (2006). Math disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature.
Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 249–274. doi:10.3102/00346543076002249
von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Preliminaries to any theory of representation. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Prob-
lems of representations in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 215–255). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1993). Introduction: Fundamental problems of defectology. In R. W. Rieber & A.
S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 2. The fundamentals of defectology
(Abnormal psychology and learning disabilities) (J. E. Knox & C. Stevens, Trans.). New York, NY:
Plenum Press. (Original work published 1929)
Zentall, S. S. (2007). Math performance of students with ADHD: Cognitive and behavioral contribu-
tors and interventions. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for
some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp.
219–244). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Author
Katherine E. Lewis, University of Washington, College of Education, Box 353600, Seattle, WA
98195; [email protected]

Submitted June 28, 2013

Accepted October 29, 2013

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 387

APPENDIX A
Pretest and Posttest Questions With Administration Stop Rules and Scoring
Questions Stop rule Scoring

1. Draw/write the frac- If student gets Total possible: 15 points

tion ___. Can you more than 2 For each fraction value
think of another way wrong. 1 point for correctly
to draw or write it? producing:
Fraction values: 1/2, • a drawing of the frac-
3/4, 2/5, 1 3/8, 5/4 tion
• an equivalent fraction
(2/4, 7/14)
• a drawing of an equiv-
alent fraction

2. Can you circle all the If the number of Total possible: 15 points
pictures that you incorrect answers Total negative points: 12
think are the same as is greater than or 1 point for every correct
____? (based on Ni, equal to the area model or discrete
2001) number of correct set answer circled.
Fraction values: 1/2, answers. –1 for every incorrect
1/3, 4/5, 5/3 answer circled.

3. Paper folding and (no stop rule) Total possible: 5 points

cutting comparison • 1 point for deter-
task (see Kamii & mining the equiva-
Clark, 1995) lence of differently
shaped halves
• 1 point for naming the
1/2 piece
• 1 point for deter-
mining the equiva-
lence of differently
shaped quarters
• 1 point for naming the
1/4 piece
• 1 point for deter-
mining how much of
the whole both 1/4
pieces are together.

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
388 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

4. A rea model fraction (no stop rule) Total possible: 8 points

comparison problems 1 point for each correct
(based on Armstrong answer.
& Larson, 1995) 1 point for each correct
Fraction values: 1/3 justification.
and 1/3; 3/5 and 2/5;
2/3 and 2/4;
unequally sized 3/4
and 3/4

5. Fraction compari- After 2 incorrect Total possible: 10 points

sons: “Which is more answers. 1 point for each correct
___ or ____?” answer and explanation.
Fraction values: 1/6
or 1/8; 2/7 or 2/5; 2/8
or 5/8; 3/6 or 5/10;
3/2 or 7/9; 4/5 or 2/3;
2/6 or 1/2; 2/5 or
3/10; 3/7 or 2/3; 5/8
or 2/3

6. Can you come up If student is not Total possible: 8 points

with a fraction equal able to produce 1 point for each equiva-
to ___? Can you an equivalent lent fraction (up to 2)
come up with another fraction. they can generate for
fraction equal to the given fraction.
___? How many frac-
tions are there equal
to ___? Fraction
values: 1/2, 1/3, 2/5,
8/12

7. How would you solve If the student Total possible: 7 points

the problem:_____ gets 2 or more 1 point for each correct
Fraction operation answers answer and explanation.
problems: 1/3 + 1/3 incorrect.
=; 3/4 – 1/4 = ; 3/5 +
4/5 =; 1/2 + 1/4 =;
3/4 – 1/8 =; 1/3 + 1/2
=; 2/5 + 2/3=

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 389

APPENDIX B
Tutoring Session Protocol Questions
(For full protocol including follow-up questions and prompts, see Lewis, 2011)

Tutoring Session 1

Challenges
• How would you explain to someone else how they labeled each of these frac-
tion pieces?
• I took the 1/8 pieces out of this set. Could you make a replacement 1/8 piece?
How many thirds does it take to make a whole?
• I copied some fraction pieces, but I had them upside down. Can you help me
figure out what name each should be?
• How can you show what 3/4 would look like with fraction pieces? How would
you explain how to make 3/4 to someone else? If someone said this (two 1/10
and one 1/8 pieces) was 3/10, would you agree or disagree?
• This rectangular set of fraction pieces is missing the one whole piece. Figure
out how to make a replacement one whole piece.
• For each set of cards put the fractions in order from least to greatest. Set 1:
1/10, 1/3, 1/100, Set 2: 2/5, 2/7, 2/16; Set 3: 3/7, 6/7, 18/7
• How many ways can you find to make 1/2 using other fractions pieces? Come
up with your own way to record all the ways you find that work.
• Without using the fraction pieces, can you make each of the fractions close to,
but NOT equal to 1/2?
• Put the fractions on these cards in order from least to greatest. Card values,
1 2/5, 2/3, 1/1000, 7/7, 3/2, 0, 9/10, 8/12, 1
• Game: Bingo game in which students are asked to create equivalent fraction
relationships using foam fraction pieces (e.g., make 1/2 using only 1/8 pieces)

Journal
• Write down something that made sense. How would you explain it to yourself
if you forgot?

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
390 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

Tutoring Session 2

Review
• Journal Review: Does this still make sense? Can you explain/give me an
example?
• Review Question: Can you come up with a fraction and show me how you
would make it with the fraction pieces? (If the student does not volunteer a
non-unit fraction, ask the student to construct one, e.g., 2/5, 7/8.)

Challenges
• Without writing down any numbers can, you draw a picture of 3/4 so that other
people would know that it’s a picture of 3/4?
• Help me guess 5 fractions on the back of the cards. (Student draws card with
a fraction value, writes it down, draws a picture, and then hides fraction value
so I can “guess.” I follow student-generated rules to “guess” the fraction the
student drew.) (Note: I intentionally misinterpret rules to highlight ambiguity
and help the student further clarify his or her understanding of fraction inter-
pretation).
• Imagine each of these pieces of paper is a cake. Four people want to share the
cake evenly. How many different ways can you split the cake into 4 pieces?
(student can cut/fold paper)
• If you are given 1 piece of each of the cakes, are they the same amount of cake
or different amounts? Show how you would convince someone of your answer.
• If these were both cakes, how can you share each cake among 3 people? Cut
out 1 piece of cake. Are they the same amounts or different amounts?
• Game: Board game in which students must determine which area model is
larger (see Armstrong & Larson, 1995).

Journal
• Write down something that made sense. How would you explain it to yourself
if you forgot?

Tutoring Session 3

Review:
• Journal Review: Does this still make sense? Can you explain/give me an
example?

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 391

• Review Question: Last time we were talking about using pictures to show
fractions. How would you draw a picture of 3/5? (draw 5/6) What fraction name
would you give this drawing?

Challenges
• Someone has started cutting up these cakes to share, but they haven’t finished
the job. Finish cutting up the cakes so that they can be shared evenly. How
many people could evenly share? How much would each person get?
• Here are some cakes. Some have chocolate frosting and some have vanilla
frosting. Your challenge is to figure out how much has chocolate frosting.
• Using a whole sheet of paper, draw 2/3 of a cake. Figure out how you can cut
the cake again so you still have even pieces. What has changed and what has
stayed the same?
• To complete this challenge you must come up with five equivalent fraction
pairs. Draw a card and figure out the fraction of cake shaded. Draw a transpar-
ency and use it to help you cut the cake into smaller pieces. Decide how you
want to record your progress.
• Come up with 5 different fractions equal to 1/2. Record your answers. What
patterns do you notice? (Extend this problem to 1/3 and 3/4.)
• Game: Students are given a fraction and using pictures (or other method) must
come up with an equivalent fraction. The computer determines if the student
got the answer correct or incorrect. (If incorrect the student attempts to figure
out her error.) Level 2 of this game involves needing to come up with a fraction
with a given denominator.

Journal
• Write down something that made sense. How would you explain it to yourself
if you forgot?

Tutoring Session 4

Review:
• Journal Review: Does this still make sense? Can you explain/give me an
example?
• Review Question: Last time we were talking about equivalent fractions. What
do you remember about equivalent fractions? What fraction is this (area model
of 1/3)? Can we divide it into sixths? How? What fraction is this (area model
of 1/2)? Can we divide it into 10ths? How?

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
392 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

Challenges
• How much do we have here? (1/2 and 1/3 pieces)
Can you write it as an addition problem?
I f student solves algorithmically ask the student to represent the problem
with fraction pieces and area models. If the student doesn’t know how to
start the problem, go onto the subproblems below.

Subproblems
1/3 + 1/3 = (problem with the denominators constant)
1/2 + 1/4 = (problem where one denominator multiplies into other)
1/6 + 1/3 = (problem where one denominator multiples into other)
Questions:
How would you solve this problem using fraction pieces?
How would you solve this problem using pictures?

• If you look back at these problems, does that help you solve the original
problem 1/2 + 1/3? What other ways can we write 1/2? What other ways can
we write 1/3?
• Solve: 2/5 + 3/10 = using fraction pieces and area models. Subproblems: 2/5 +
3/5 = and 2/10 + 3/10 =
• Solve: 7/8 – 3/4 = using fraction pieces and area models.
• 2/3 + 1/4 =
• Game: Board game where students solve fraction addition/subtraction prob-
lems and reduce the fraction to figure out the next move.

Journal
• Write down something that made sense. How would you explain it to yourself
if you forgot?

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 393

APPENDIX C
Lisa’s Persistent Understandings—Operational Definition and Number
of Problem Instances

Number of
Operational definition instances (% of
all problems)

L1 – Taking: Problems were coded as indicative of a “taking” 24 (5.5%)

understanding if Lisa (1) used the words take, gone, or missing
(or any derivation) to refer to the numerator quantity, (2) used
the word left to refer to the fractional complement, (3) was
gesturing or referring to the fractional complement (repre-
sented by the nonshaded area model region or missing frac-
tion pieces) as the focal fractional quantity, (4) used shading
to represent the removal of pieces, or (5) interpreted the
fractional quantity as the fractional complement.

L2 – Half as balance: Problems were coded as indicative of 15 (3.4%)

a “half as balance” understanding if Lisa (1) justified her
answer by focusing on the balance and similarity between the
two quantities (part–part understanding) rather than focusing
on the one part out of the total number of parts (part–whole
understanding), (2) represented 1/2 by drawing a shape, parti-
tioning it in two, and omitted the shading, or (3) used gestures
and gave explanations consistent with 1/2 as a splitting-action
rather than a quantity.

L3 – Discrete set: Problems were coded as indicative of a 39 (8.9%)

“discrete set” understanding if Lisa (1) ignored the intention-
ally unequal size of the pieces when interpreting fractional
representations, (2) understood each part of a continuous
model as a discrete entity (e.g., six squares) as opposed to a
part of a whole (rectangle partitioned into six pieces), (3) did
not account for the difference between sizes of wholes when
comparing continuous models of fractions, or (4) operated on
fractions as if they were represented by a discrete set (1-out-
of-6 plus 1-out-of-5 equals 2-out-of-11).

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
394 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

L4 – Unit fraction: Problems were coded as indicative of a 35 (8.0%)

“unit fraction” understanding if Lisa (1) judged the size of the
fraction based solely on the denominator using an inverse
relationship (e.g., 1/3 is bigger than 4/5 because thirds are
bigger than fifths), (2) judged the size of the fraction solely on
the numerator using an inverse relationship (e.g., 3/5 is smaller
than 2/5), (3) asserted that 1/2 was the largest fraction, or (4)
represented the unit fraction separate from the numerator
value (e.g., 5/10 represented as 5 1/10).

L5 – Partitioning: Problems were coded as indicative of a 15 (3.4%)

“partitioning” understanding if Lisa (1) attempted to partition
a shape into an odd number with a partitioning-by-halving
strategy, (2) asserted that it was impossible to partition a shape
into an odd number of pieces, (3) drew the number of parti-
tions corresponding to the denominator value (resulting in an
extra piece), or (4) involved a nonnormative partitioning of a
shape in the final representation.

L6 – Arbitrary manipulation: Problems were coded as 16 (3.6%)

indicative of an “arbitrary manipulation” if Lisa (1) manipu-
lated symbols and representations based on superficial
aspects without respect to their underlying meaning, (2)
performed mathematical computations on values without
regard to the meaning or relationship of those values (“2/6
equals 1/12 because 2 times 6 is 12”), or (3) interpreted repre-
sentations by attending to superficial aspects of the form,
(e.g., “one-half” can be written as “1.5” because it is “1”
(“one”) and “.5” (“half”)).

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Katherine E. Lewis 395

APPENDIX D
Emily’s Persistent Understandings—Operational Definition and Number
of Problem Instances

Number of
Operational definition instances (% of
all problems)
E1 – Smaller part: Problems were coded as indicative of a 28 (5.5%)
“smaller part” understanding if Emily interpreted a fractional
representation based on the part composed of fewer pieces. In
addition, because her attention to smaller part created ambi-
guity with respect to how shading should be interpreted,
problems were also coded as “smaller part” if she interpreted
the fraction as the fractional complement (corresponding to
the nonshaded or missing pieces), irrespective if it was the
smaller of the two quantities.

E2 – Quantity as partitions: Problems were coded as indic- 15 (3.0%)

ative of a “quantities as partitions” understanding if Emily (1)
understood the partitioning of a shape to represent that unit
fraction quantity (e.g., partitioning into two is a representation
of 1/2, partitioning into three is a representation of 1/3, etc.)
or (2) used gestures and gave explanations consistent with 1/2
as a splitting-action rather than a quantity.

E3 – Part–part: Problems were coded as indicative of a 16 (3.2%)

“part–part” understanding if Emily (1) referred to a fractional
amount in terms of the numerator and the complement rather
than the numerator and the whole, or (2) focused on the
balance between the two parts comprising the whole.
Instances in which she identified the fraction in part–part
terms, but later identified the whole, were excluded, because
it is more suggestive of a part–whole understanding.

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
396 Reconceptualizing Math Learning Disabilities

E4 – More pieces: Problems were coded as indicative of a 14 (2.8%)

“more pieces” understanding if Emily (1) focused on the
number of pieces in the whole, rather than on the size of the
pieces, particularly when size was the relevant dimension,
(2) asserted that the larger denominator had the larger sized
pieces, (3) asserted that the fraction with the larger denomi-
nator was the larger fractional value, or (4) focused on the
number of pieces without referencing the size of the pieces in
the context of equivalent fractions. In addition, because “more
pieces” was refined to be associated with the smaller fraction,
problems in which Emily asserted that the fraction with the
larger numerator was the smaller fraction (e.g., 3/5 is smaller
than 2/5 because 3 is larger than 2) were also included.

E5 – Quarters: Problems were coded as indicative of a “quar- 16 (3.2%)

ters” understanding if Emily (1) referred to “fourths” in terms
of quarters, (2) used the numeral 25 to represent fourths, or
(3) attended to perceptual and figural cues (like perceived
right angles) to judge the fractional value as equivalent to 1/4.

E6 – Representation as answer: Problems were coded as 34 (6.7%)

indicative of “representation as answer” if Emily (1) treated
construction and interpretation of the representation as
disconnected acts, in particular by interpreting a representa-
tion she had constructed as a different fractional quantity
(e.g., draws 5/8 and interprets it as 3/8) or by answering ques-
tions about the construction of a representation in terms of
interpretation or vice versa (e.g., when asked about
constructing a representation she answered with language
consistent with interpretation—“count, look at, etc.”—or
when asked about interpretation she answered with language
consistent with construction—“draw, divide, shade”) or
(2) inappropriately mapped meaning onto the representation
or manipulated symbols or a representation in a way that
suggested abstracted rules divorced from meaning (e.g., a 1/4
piece and 1/6 piece equals a 1/10 piece).

This content downloaded from 94.173.216.181 on Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:57:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions