Final Planning Assignment: Meeting the Needs of Students with Learning Disabilities in Elementary Mathematics

Allison Renew

EDTD 6001

Augusta University

June 22, 2017

Meeting the Needs of Students with Learning Disabilities

in Elementary Mathematics

Problem of Practice:

Have you ever tried to ride a bike? Did you do it without practicing on a tricycle or a bike with training wheels? If you were to try to ride a bike without practicing, you may find out that you lack the foundational skills needed to perform this task. Students with learning disabilities often find difficulties in moving forward with grade-appropriate tasks because they are not yet proficient in the necessary foundational skills like adding and subtracting single digit numbers in math (Altharwa, H, Neyman, J., McLaughlin, T.F., Johnson, G., 2014; Lund, K., McLaughlin, T.F., & Neyman, J., 2012; Skarr, A., Zielinski, K., Ruwe, K., Sharp, H., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T.F., 2014). As Lund et al. (2012) noted, “once a student has fallen behind in math, it is difficult for student to catch up without extra small group instruction” (p. 2). A common struggle among many teachers is the finding the proper way to differentiate learning to meet the needs of all students. The Georgia Department of Education (2014) describes evidence of differentiated instruction when a teacher “supports each student’s learning by providing appropriate content and developing skills which address individual learning differences” (p. 1). Kroesbergen and Van Luit said “Direct Instruction has been found to be the most effective and successful procedure to teach students with disabilities basic math facts” (as cited in Lund et al., 2012, p. 2).

Provide Understanding:

When teaching 2^nd grade students about adding and subtracting double-digit numbers they were reminded of all the skills and strategies they learned in single digit addition and subtraction. They would use these strategies to help them solve double-digit problems. As we moved though the unit, I noticed that a small group of students were finding difficulty in solving these problems. These students all had a learning disability that could have been impeding their ability to master simple addition and subtraction facts which in turn affected their ability to move forward with double digit addition and subtraction. They needed a great deal of support and reminders about the foundational strategies we had reviewed at the beginning of the year. I noticed that they were having great difficulty in solving single digit addition or subtraction problems within double digit problems. Poor test scores showed that these students were unable to effectively apply their prior knowledge of adding and subtracting single digits within double digit addition and subtraction equations.

A problem of practice was identified. I did not meet the needs of these students to properly scaffold their learning in addition and subtraction. While most of my class was able to go on with the current lessons, these students needed more emphasis on the foundational skills they were lacking. They needed to become proficient in identifying addition and subtraction facts of single digit numbers. I found that even though I used Otter Creek Institute’s Rocket Math program with all of my students to promote addition and subtraction automaticity, it was not an appropriate assignment or measure for those students with learning disabilities. There was a need for a better way to serve them in this area.

I chose this problem of practice because I knew what was going to be expected of these students by the end of the year. I knew that they truly needed to grasp these simple skills in order to help them move forward in learning more difficult tasks. In the summative assessment these students often chose the wrong multiple choice answers or incorrectly solved an extended response problem because of their lack of knowledge and ability to apply. It was almost like they had too much to process and simply got confused. We needed to go back to the basics. They needed to know single digit addition and subtraction facts with automaticity before they could effectively apply such skills in more difficult problems.

Summary of Current Research about Problem:

            In a study completed by Skarr et al. (2014), the authors found that Direct Instruction (DI) flashcards and math racetracks procedures are “a very systematic way at facilitating mastery and retention of basic facts on a completely individualized basis” (p. 91). First a baseline needs to be established. It is necessary to know what facts the student has already mastered and which facts they have yet to master. Once the teacher knows which facts are unknown, he/she can sort facts into groups of fifteen with at least three and no more than seven unknown facts in each group. Then the teacher can create individualized flash cards and racetracks to help that student master those facts. Skarr et al. (2014) describes the DI flashcard procedure in their study:

The participants had to say the entire statement and answer correctly within 2 sec. If not, the researcher modeled the statement and answer and the child had to then repeat the entire statement and answer. The researcher then put the flashcard back in the pile two to three cards back so the card came up again quickly so the child’s likelihood of remembering the fact would be increased. The researcher continued to put the missed fact only two to three cards back until the child answered that particular fact correctly three times in a row. At that point the particular fact was put at the back of the pile so that the child had to remember the fact for a longer period of time to promote retention. (p. 82)

In addition to completing the DI flashcard procedures with the student, the teacher would also create and implement a math racetrack. This is quite simply a paper that has a racetrack drawn on it with empty spaces for the teacher to input math facts. Skarr et al. (2014) goes on to describe this procedure:

On each of the segments was written a math fact- 14 mastered facts based on the pretest and five to seven target facts placed at least twice each on the math racetrack. The researchers mixed up the targeted facts and mastered facts each time they worked with the participants. The child had to say the entire statement and answer correctly before moving on to the next fact. The child was timed when completing the entire racetrack. The researchers gave contingent praise for quick correct responses. If an error occurred a researcher modeled saying the statement and correct answer and then the child repeated the entire statement and answer before going to the next fact. (p. 82)

The teacher would continue this process with the additional sets of math facts until mastery of all facts was achieved. The teacher would need to keep a record of facts mastered and facts not mastered during each session. A “data collection sheet” was used in a similar study by Lund et al. (2012), where the administrators marked a plus (+) or minus (-) sign under corresponding facts to signal if students correctly identified the answer or not (p. 4). Lund et al. (2012) also mentioned using the data collection sheet to record the time of the completed racetrack (p. 5). The teacher would keep a record of racetrack times in order to show improved math fact fluency.
            These studies show there is an advantage to implementing both strategies concurrently in a game format resulting in an increase of the student’s desire to learn and succeed. Skarr et al. (2014) also noted that “studies that combined the DI flashcard procedure with the math or reading racetrack purposely had the racetrack procedure follow the DI flashcard procedure to help maintain the students’ motivation” (p. 79). Both studies noted how simple and cost efficient it was to implement these interventions. Skarr et al. (2014) even says that “students could easily administer the Direct Instruction procedure to one another, as could a parent or aide” (p. 89). Results of the studies by Skarr et al. (2014) and Lund et al. (2012) indicated that participants improved their knowledge of math facts. They also reported an increase of motivation and self-efficacy for each student participating. This overall success can provide students with the foundational skills they need to move on to more challenging tasks. As Skarr et al. said, “given effective tools and instruction methods, students’ improved mastery, motivation, and confidence should provide a foundation upon which to build more competent mathematical skills” (p. 91).

Proposed Changes:

Altharwa et al. (2014) concluded that their “outcomes add to the growing list of research that has found that DI flashcards can be very affective in teaching math” (p. 22). The proposed changes for this problem of practice will include daily math fact practice with DI flashcards and math racetracks for students with an identified learning disability as well as any other students that may benefit from this form of instruction. I will continue to work on Rocket Math as an activator with the majority of the class. While other students are working on Rocket Math, the students that use DI flashcards and math racetracks will work at a table together. If the time allotted is not sufficient, students will work on DI flashcards and math racetracks during math small groups. I will need to give a baseline assessment to see which facts the students need more instruction in. I will facilitate DI flashcards and may even allow peer-to-peer instruction to take place. I will keep a record of fact proficiency and I will assess student knowledge using both interventions. By meeting the needs of students with disabilities in math through the implementing the direct instruction flashcards and math racetracks, I predict that overall math achievement will improve for these students.

References

Altharwa, H, Neyman, J., McLaughlin, T.F., Johnson, G. (2014). An evaluation of the effectiveness of implementing di flashcard procedure to teach basic multiplication facts with an elementary private school student with learning disabilities. International Journal of Innovation and Research in Education Sciences, 1(1), 21-24.

Georgia Department of Education. (2014, July 1). TAPS standards reference sheet with sample indicators. Retrieved from https://www.gadoe.org/School-Improvement/Teacher-and-Leader-Effectiveness/Pages/Teacher-Keys-Effectiveness-System.aspx

Kroesbergen, E.H., & Van Luit, J.E.H. (2003). Mathematical interventions for children with special educational needs. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97-114.

Lund, K., McLaughlin, T.F., & Neyman, J. (2012). The effects of di flashcards and math racetrack on multiplication facts for two elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 1(1), 1-15.

Skarr, A., Zielinski, K., Ruwe, K., Sharp, H., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T.F. (2014). The effects of direct instruction flashcard and math racetrack procedures on mastery of basic multiplication facts by three elementary school students. Education and Treatment of Children, 37(1), 77-93.