Date post: | 19-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | janet-van-heck |
View: | 405 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Running head: CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE
The Effect of the Concrete-Representational-Abstract Mathematical Sequence
on Addition Skills 0 to 9 for Struggling Learners in Kindergarten
Single Subject Design
University of Nevada – Las Vegas
December 2014
Janet Van Heck
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 2
Abstract
Many students with disabilities struggle in the area of mathematics. This is especially true related
to the development of conceptual knowledge. The concrete-representational-abstract (CRA)
teaching sequence delivered via explicit instruction helps increase both conceptual knowledge
and math performance. A multiple-probe-across-participants design was used to examine the
effects of explicit instruction and the C-R-A sequence to teach kindergarten students how to add
numbers 0 to 9. The three subjects benefitted from the scripted instructional lessons. Their test
scores improved considerably and were able to generalize what they learned on subsequent
practice sheets. Practical implications and suggestions for future research are provided.
Key Words: mathematics disabilities, concrete-representational-abstract teaching sequence,
explicit instruction, manipulative devices.
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 3
Many school-aged students with disabilities experience difficulties in the curricular area
of mathematics. Once thought to be quite uncommon, it is now agreed that between 5% and
13.8% of the school population have learning disabilities in mathematics (Barbaresk, Katusic,
Colligan, Weaver & Jacobs, 2005; Mazzocco, 2005). These math disabilities range from mild to
severe (Barbaresk, Katusic, Colligan, Weaver & Jacobs, 2005; Mazzocco, 2005).
One of the most persistent difficulties for students who experience mathematics
disabilities is the development of conceptual knowledge (Hecht, Vagi, & Torgesen, 2007).
Students who demonstrate conceptual knowledge in mathematics have deep understandings
related to the meaning of abstract mathematical symbols. For example, they understand that a
plus sign means to add and a minus sign means to subtract, but they also understand that addition
means combining two groups to get a larger group and/or that subtraction either means beginning
with a large group and taking some away or comparing two quantities to determine the amount
of difference between them (Hudson & Miller, 2006). Unfortunately, many students with
mathematics disabilities learn to perform mathematics operations (i.e., addition, subtraction,
multiplication, division) without understanding the underlying concepts associated with each
operation (Stevens, Harris, Aguirre-Munoz, & Cobbs, 2009). They simply memorize step-by-
step processes to get correct answers or they try to find patterns in problem examples provided in
their texts and the problems they need to solve without understanding why the steps are being
performed or why the pattern exists. When students fail to acquire conceptual understanding
related to the mathematics they are learning, they are less likely to maintain and generalize the
new concepts and skills to real-life activities (Panasuk, 2010; Simon, 2008).
Because of the challenges that students with disabilities display related to conceptualizing
the meaning of mathematics (Das & Janzen, 2004) diverse classroom emphases, adaptations and
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 4
sometimes divergent methods are needed (Hough, 2004). The use of evidence-based practices
has the potential to help teachers design effective, efficient, and motivating mathematics lessons.
The purpose of this article is to share information about how teachers can combine the use of the
concrete-representational-abstract teaching sequence and explicit instruction in teaching addition
facts 0 to 9.
The Common Core State Standards include addition and subtraction standards related
conceptual and procedural knowledge for a number of reasons. First, due to the hierarchical
nature of mathematics learning, many students who struggle with math have limited
understanding related to foundational operations (National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008).
When students do not master these early skills, they will continue to fail. Also, students who
lack conceptual knowledge tend to rely on memorization to get answers correct. Additionally,
deficits in conceptual knowledge negatively impact a student’s ability to develop and generalize
procedures for mathematics learning. It is this balance between conceptual and procedural
knowledge that causes students to become successful at mathematics (Hudson & Miller, 2006).
While the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics are very useful in identifying
important instructional competencies, the curriculum does not provide information on evidence-
based practices for students who struggle with mathematics. Over the last 20 years, the number
of studies developed to improve math performance in students of all ages has increased and
consistently include such practices as explicit instruction and strategy instruction (Gersten,
Chard, Jayanthi, Baker, Morphy& Flojo, 2009; Miller, Butler & Lee, 1998).
Explicit instruction provides clear models for solving problems, examples for solving
problems, and multiple practice opportunities of the newly learned skill (Components of an
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 5
Effective Lesson, 2014). The components of an effective lesson are often used in explicit
instruction (e.g., advanced organizer, demonstrations, guided practice, independent practice and
feedback) (National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008).
Strategy instruction focuses on the process of solving problems. This category of
instruction includes teacher-student dialogue and feedback, multi-process instructions, reminders
to use procedures that have been taught, demonstrations, questioning, and systematic
explanations (Montague, 2008). One instructional practice that combines both explicit
instruction and strategy instruction is the concrete-representational-abstract mathematical
sequence.
Concrete-Representational-Abstract Mathematical Sequence
The concrete-representational-abstract (C-R-A) teaching sequence is an evidence-based
instructional practice that is used to support the development of conceptual understanding in
mathematics (Hudson & Miller, 2006; Flores, 2010; Strickland & Maccini, 2013). See the
Literature Review on the Use of the Concrete-Representational-Abstract Sequence in Table 1.
When teachers use the C-R-A sequence, instruction on a new math skill begins at the
concrete level (i.e., manipulative devices are used to represent and solve the type of math
problems being taught). When students reach mastery level (i.e., typically 80% accuracy) at the
concrete level, instruction progresses to the representational level (i.e., pictures of objects or
tallies are used to represent and solve the type of problems being taught). When students reach
mastery level (i.e., typically 80% accuracy) at the representational level, instruction progresses to
the abstract level (i.e., problems are represented and solved using numbers without manipulative
devices or drawings).
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 6
Explicit instructional procedures are used at all three levels (i.e., concrete,
representational, abstract) of instruction with a minimum of three lessons at each level. Explicit
instruction involves structured and systematic lessons in which students are guided through the
learning process with clear statements about the purpose and rationale for learning a new skill,
clear explanations and demonstrations of the learning target, and supported practice with
feedback until independent mastery has been achieved (Archer & Hughes, 2011; Hudson, Miller,
and Butler, 2006; Taymans, Swanson, Schwarz, Gregg, Hock, & Gerber, 2009).
A substantial amount of research supports the use of the CRA teaching sequence being
implemented via explicit instructional approaches (Flores, 2010; Strickland & Maccini, 2013).
This approach has been effective for both elementary and secondary students with disabilities
across a variety of math skills (e.g., math facts, place value, regrouping skills, fractions, algebra).
See Table 1.
The purpose of this study is to apply the previous literature on C-R-A instruction to the
new skill of addition facts 0 to 9 for Kindergarten students. The proposed research study will
investigate a new area of C-R-A implementation. Not only may junior high and high school
students benefit from C-R-A instruction, but students as young as Kindergarten will be able to
put this research-based practice to use.
Research question: Will kindergarten students show improvement in their 0 to 9 addition
facts upon completion of the concrete-representational-abstract sequence intervention?
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 7
Method
Participants
Seven students who are identified to begin the Response-to-Intervention process will be
screened for mathematic ability. Specifically, this will involve the students completing four
problems in which they described aloud how to solve the problem using manipulative devices,
and four problems where they describe how to solve the problems without the math
manipulatives. The students who earn an average score of 50 or below will be selected for the
study. The students will be tested on their knowledge of addition facts 0 to 9. There will be
three students identified for participation. Students who have had very little exposure to this skill
will be selected for the treatment. This will be done to reduce the chance that previous
instruction would influence participant performance data. Parental permission will be obtained
by having them sign a release form for their child to participate in the study. If students are
absent on a day of instruction, they will start where they left off on the intervention.
Two of the students will be male, and one was female. Two will Hispanic, and one will
be White. Achievement scores on formal assessments will likely from the 1st percentile to the
20th percentile. See Table 2 for information on each participant and their demographic group.
A special education teacher will administer the treatment to each participant. The teacher
will have a master’s degree in special education and at least 5 years of experience in the field.
The teacher will have previous knowledge teaching with the C-R-A sequence.
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 8
Setting
The study will take place in an elementary school in a large urban area in the southwest
of the Unites States. There are 620 students enrolled in the school. 61% were Hispanic, 18%
were African-American, 13% were White, and 7% were Asian/Pacific Islander. 85% of the
school population received free or reduced lunches. The lessons and data collections for this
study will be done in the resource room. The students receiving the treatment are the only
students in the classroom at the time of the lessons. Generalization for the study will also take
place in the same setting. However, students will also be monitored in the general education
classroom to evaluate their generalization of the lessons.
The teacher will be seated across from the student at a table. The teacher will collect data
for the baseline condition. She will also teach all of the lessons of the C-R-A sequence to each
student. The experimenter will be the person to score the dependent measure practice sheets and
place the data in an Excel spreadsheet. The teacher will instruct the lessons, and the student will
complete the practice sheets on a one-on-one basis for each of the three students selected for the
study. There will be no non-participants in the room at the time of the instruction or
measurement.
Materials
The materials will consist of scripted lessons, practice sheets, math manipulatives, and
student notebooks (Miller & Mercer, 1992). Fifteen scripted lessons will be used to guide the
lessons. They will include what the teacher will say and do during each of the lesson elements:
advanced organizer, model, guided practice, independent practice, and problem-solving practice.
Ten learning sheets and 5 quizzes will establish student engagement during the lessons. The
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 9
problems on the practice sheets are in line with the teacher scripts for each lesson. Manipulative
devices (cubes, rectangles, and base-ten blocks) will be used during the concrete phase, which
comprised the first 5 lessons. Each student will store their completed practice sheets, quizzes,
and progress chart in their folder. The progress charts will track the students’ practice sheet
scores and were used to motivate the students as they progress in their skills. Generalization
stimuli will only consist of progress sheets, quizzes, and the Frog Game. There are no tangible
rewards for participation, but students will gain a sense of accomplishment as their skills
improve and see their steady progress on the progress chart in their folder. The progress charts
will consist of a vertical axis of student performance from 0 to 100, and the horizontal axis will
show the date of the lesson. The score of each quiz and practice sheet will be recorded here.
Measurement Procedures
The instructional routine will be facilitated through the use of the 15 scripted lessons
(Miller & Mercer, 1992). Sessions will take 4 to 5 times per week, depending on work load and
the school schedule. The sessions will take place at 1:15 pm in the afternoon. The maximum
length of each session will be 1 ½ hours. The stimuli will be presented in the order of the C-R-
A, a research-based practice, sequence to be discussed further. All lessons will include
computation problems, and the last three lessons will have word problems. Generalization will
be attained with the use of a Frog Game, where students work the problems mentally, without
using manipulative devices or representative tally marks.
Concrete lessons. The first five lessons will be concrete level lessons. They will
involve the use of base-ten blocks and Practice Sheets 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 to introduce the concept
of addition facts 0 to 9. The teacher will demonstrate to the student how to use the blocks to add
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 10
a certain number of blocks to another amount of blocks. The student counts how many blocks in
total to get the answer.
Additionally, the DRAW strategy (Harris, Miller, & Mercer, 1995) will be introduced.
The students will discover the sign, indicating which mathematical operation to perform. Then,
they will read the problem, reading it aloud for the teacher to hear. The student will answer the
question by counting out the blocks. Finally, they will write the answer (Mercer & Miller,
1992).
Representational lessons. The next three lessons will involve representational level
instruction using drawings or tallies instead of the blocks used in the concrete phase. For lessons
6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, the students draw tally marks on the practice sheets to represent how many
blocks they would count out. Then, they add the next amount of tallies over the next number.
They count together all of the tallies, and this solves the addition problem. The DRAW strategy
will be utilized again as an instructional aid to help students remember what to do (Harris,
Miller, & Mercer, 1995).
Abstract lessons. The last five lessons involved abstract-level instruction. The students
must solve the problems with number symbols only, excluding the use of manipulative blocks or
tally marks. The students will be allowed to look at a learning sheet that has the DRAW strategy
instructions listed on it if they having difficulty remembering what to do. Fluency in adding
addition facts 0 to 9 will be emphasized during this phase (Mercer & Miller, 1992).
Additionally, the students will play a Frog Game, where they have to move their pieces
forward on a board depending on the numbers they add together on a pair of dice. They have to
be able to generalize the skill to the game in order to play correctly. The game and observations
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 11
of students in the general education setting will determine the external validity or generalization
of addition facts 0 to 9 taught using explicit instruction and the C-R-A sequence.
Lesson Components
Each of the 15 lessons will include the same five explicit teaching components to teach
the content discussed in the previous section. These components will be advanced organizer,
describe and model, guided practice, independent practice, and problem-solving practice
(National Mathematics, 2008).
During the advanced practice component of each lesson, the teach script will involve
introducing the upcoming lesson, the explicit teaching components used in the upcoming lesson,
handing out the lesson materials, and reviewing what was learned in the previous lesson
(Components of an Effective Lesson, 2014).
During the describe and model component of each lesson, the teacher script will involve
teacher think-alouds related to solving addition facts 0 to 9 using manipulative blocks, drawings,
or the DRAW strategy depending on whether a concrete, representational, or abstract lesson was
being taught. The student will watch the teacher solve three problems while the students write
down the same markings and numbers. The teacher will give corrective feedback if the students
make any errors (Mercer & Miller, 1992).
During the guided practice part of each lesson, the teacher will give verbal support by
asking questions to assist the students as they solve the guided practice problems. The students
will use blocks, tally marks, or the DRAW strategy. A reduction in teacher support will occur
with the second and third guided practice problems. Answers to the last two guided practice
problems will not be discussed (Harris, Miller, & Mercer,1995).
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 12
During the independent practice component of each lesson, the student will complete six
problems that are on the practice sheet without assistance from the teacher. No teacher feedback
will be provided as the students solve these problems (Components of Effective Lesson, 2014).
During the problem-solving practice portion of each lesson, the students will solve two
word problems using blocks, tally marks, or the DRAW strategy depending on whether it was a
concrete, representational, or abstract lesson. The teacher will read the first word problem aloud
to the student, and then the student will solve the problem without teacher assistance. The
student and teach will plot the scores on the progress chart in the student notebooks (Mercer &
Miller, 1992). Generalization of the new skill will be measured during this phase.
Experimental Design
The study will employ a multiple probe (Gast, 2010) across students. The multiple probe
design will be replicated one time with two additional students. The design evaluates a
functional relationship by measuring improvement in mathematical performance with each
lesson. The students will be assessed for baseline with a simple test like the practice sheet in
Figure 1. They will be taught and assessed on the concrete, representational, and abstract
methods. Generalization will be assessed by a test where there are asked to compute their
problems in their heads without using the manipulative devices of the concrete phase or the
tallies of the representational phase. They will demonstrate their generalization during the Frog
Game. This generalization exhibits external validity. Internal validity will be established by the
increase in math performance as documented on the progress charts and as seen on the design
graphs in Figure 2. This describes the design for the sole research question. The data will be
interpreted by visual inspection, and the following characteristics will be noted:
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 13
Baseline Procedures. Following the procurement of research approval, screening data,
parent permission, and student commitments, the three participants will receive baseline probes
following the parameters the multiple probe design. The probes will be administered in the
setting described previously on a one-on-one basis. Three alternative forms of baseline probes
will be administered in sequence, similar to the probe in Figure 1. The probes will be
administered daily for three days in a row or until level, trend, and slope have been established
(Gast, 2010), and they will not be timed. No assistance will be given to the students as they
complete the baseline probes. This will determine the students’ ability in addition facts 0 to 9
before they have received any instruction in this area. There will be no consequences or rewards
at this point.
Next, the teacher will have a discussion with each student about the importance of
learning addition facts 0 to 9. This discussion will end with the students and teacher agreeing to
do their best to learn and teach the new addition skill, and signing a contract.
C-R-A Intervention Procedures. All three participants will receive the 15 C-R-A
intervention lessons from the teacher following the parameters of the multiple probe design. The
lessons will be administered in the resource room setting, and the students will complete the
practice sheets as the lessons progress through the lesson components. The last ten problems on
the sheets will be used as the intervention probe for the lesson. The probes will be scored with
the student present, and feedback will be provided to the student and the score will be plotted on
the progress chart in each student’s notebook.
The teacher will sit across from the student and present the 15 lessons and document
scores from the practice sheets on the progress charts. As stated in the lesson components
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 14
section, students will receive more support in the beginning of each lesson, and gradually have
the support reduced until the student is working independently. The consequence for an
incorrect score will be a lower score documented on their progress chart. Likewise, the
reinforcement for correct answers will be a higher score marked on the progress chart. Each
lesson will be taught using explicit instruction, and instructions will be followed as presented in
Mercer and Miller’s Addition Facts 0 to 9 (1992).
Generalization procedures. Generalization procedures will be used to assess for the
ability to apply addition facts 0 to 9 in a situation, apart from the instructional activities and
solving the problems on the practice sheets and quizzes. This will determine whether they in fact
learned a new skill, and that the intervention was the reason for the students demonstrating the
new skill. The students will demonstrate generalization for three days after the intervention
phase. The students will play the Frog Game. The teacher will measure how many times they
add the numbers on the dice together correctly. These figures will be documented as an accuracy
score. If the student is truly skilled, he or she will be able to win the game, and this will be their
reward for generalizing the skill.
Response definitions and recording procedures. It will be a requirement that students
can read and write numbers and letters, including some words, and that they understand how to
distinguish mathematical symbols (e.g. +, -, /, x). The desired response for this intervention is
for students to improve in mathematical ability in demonstrating addition facts 0 to 9. To see the
interventions and lesson procedures for a student, view Figure 2 in the appendix.
The generalization of this skill would be being able to add any numbers from 0 to 9
without using the concrete (manipulative blocks) or representational (tally marks) phases of the
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 15
C-R-A sequence. Examples of this would be applying the skill to advance and win the Frog
Game described in the generalization section. If a student is able to complete a quiz abstractly
(mentally, without using blocks or marks), the student will be demonstrating mastery of the skill.
When a student can add numbers 0 to 9 in the general education setting without being reminded
of the C-R-A sequence, the student is demonstrating generalization at this point.
The recording procedure will be the practice sheets and progress chart documentation for
performance on each lesson following explicit instruction of the C-R-A sequence. Students will
receive a grade from 0 to 100. The responses to be recorded during each experimental condition
are as follows. A score from 0 to 100 will be assigned for each baseline procedure. The only
assessment during instruction is that students are engaged, participating, and exhibiting
understanding. During intervention, the students will be assessed using the practice sheets; the
last 10 questions of the sheet will be used to apply to the data set for intervention.
Results
The baseline, intervention, and generalization probe scores for all three participants are
displayed in Figure 3. Visual analysis of these data shows that all students display immediate
level gains when the intervention lessons start. The baseline probe scores for these participants
range from 40% to 60%, showing that the students already had some prior knowledge of this
skill. The intervention probe scores for the participants ranged from 55% to 100%.
Individual participant means, standard deviations, and percentage point gains are listed
on Table 3. Julie is the only student to who can be measured for baseline mean and standard
deviation. Her baseline mean is a score of 55, with a standard deviation of 15. Her intervention
mean and standard deviation were 92 and 6.32. Her percentage point gain score was 92. Ricky
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 16
had a lower intervention mean and a higher standard deviation, with scores of 89 and 12. His
percentage point gain score was 83. Jesse had a slightly higher intervention mean of 90, and a
comparable standard deviation of 10. His percentage point gain score was 90. Ricky showed the
most improvement from baseline to generalization.
All three participants were able to achieve mastery (80 percent or higher) on all 15
lessons. Performance trends were similar for all three participants. The trends for intervention
performance were stable at relatively high performance levels. There was a ceiling level of 100
percent for intervention probes.
C-R-A Performance
Julie. After beginning C-R-A addition facts instruction, Julie will reach criterion on the
first probe of the 15 total sessions. Her range of scores will be 71 through 100. There will be an
immediate change in the level of performance between baseline and C-R-A, and there will be no
overlapping data points between baseline and the C-R-A instruction. Julie’s average
performance will be a score of 92. The data points of the C-R-A intervention demonstrate an
upward path, indicating steady improvement. There is no change in trend. Her learning appears
to be stable, although she does show three drops during instruction, on days 6, 8 and 18. Day 18
was the first day of the abstract lessons, so she does demonstrate some difficulty with applying
the new skill on the abstract level. The median score in of the 15 instructional lessons was 100.
Ricky. After beginning the first of the 15 C-R-A instructional lessons, he reached
criterion immediately. His range of scores was 71 to 100. There will be an immediate change in
level of performance between baseline and C-R-A. Ricky has an average score of 89. Ricky’s
data points show an upward path, but his data points have an unstable path demonstrating that he
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 17
struggles with the material considerably. On days, 9, 11, 14, and 17, he had lower scores. Word
problems were introduced on day 9, which would explain why his score would drop. The
representational phase of using tallies to represent numbers was introduced on day 11, and Ricky
had a drop on this day also. On day 17, he struggles with the introduction of the abstract phase,
removing the use of blocks and tallies, and working the problems mentally. There is no change
in trend or any overlaps. The median score of the 15 lessons was 77.
Jesse. After beginning C-R-A addition facts instruction, Jesse reached criterion on the
seventh probe of the 15 total sessions. His range of scores is 75 through 100. He shows an
immediate change in the level of performance between baseline and C-R-A, and there are no
overlapping data points between baseline and the C-R-A instruction. Jesse’s average
performance is a score of 90. He had a low score upon the beginning of the representational
phase, a score of 55. From there until the end of the intervention, the data points demonstrate an
upward path, indicating steady improvement. There is no change in trend. Although he shows
steady improvement, his learning appears to be unstable, with drops in performance on days 11,
13, and 17. The median score in of the 15 instructional lessons was 85.
Evaluation of threats to internal validity. Maturation will not occur because the study
will only take about 4 to 5 weeks for each participant to complete. That will not give them
enough time to simply outgrow the instructional intervention. Multi-treatment interference will
not likely happen because the only mathematic instruction that Kindergarteners receive is
reading, writing, and understanding what each number means. Parents will be requested not to
instruct their children in this skill until after the study is completed. Attrition will probably not
happen because the baseline and intervention together only take about 4 to 5 weeks, so the
likelihood that a student will leave during this short of a period of time is not high.
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 18
Procedural Fidelity and Inter-rate Reliability. Fidelity data will be collected for 30%
of all intervention lessons. Two independent observers will doctoral students in the special
education program at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. They will be trained on the C-R-A
sequence and will be trained to make sure the lessons are presented according to standards of
explicit instruction. They will use a checklist to measure to the implementation of instructional
components. These are teacher behaviors that should be followed (advance organizer, describe
and model showing teacher demonstration and student engagement, guided practice going from
high to low support, independent practice, and problem-solving practice). The percentage
agreement that must be obtained for each teacher behavior is 80%. They will collect data every
three days. Based on the formula agreements/ (agreements + disagreements) x 100, the
procedural reliability for fidelity of treatment will be determined. Two independent scorers will
score 100% of the baseline and intervention probes. The inter-scorer reliability will be
calculated. The minimum score for both reliability and fidelity will be 80%.
Social Validity. Social validity will be determined by the results of interviews conducted
before and after the study. The students and teacher will answer questions on the need for the
intervention and recommendations for other students and teachers. The data collected will be
described. The teacher will likely report that that the students’ performance in addition facts 0 to
9 improved. Some students may express that addition facts 0 to 9 was difficult, and they want to
participate in the program. The students will make a commitment to participate and determine to
learn a new way to complete addition problems.
PND. The PND in this study was calculated by identifying the highest baseline probe
among all participants, identifying the number of treatment process from all three participants
that were greater than the highest baseline probe which was Julie and Ricky at 60%, and dividing
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 19
the number of treatment probes greater than the highest baseline probe (50%) by the total
number of treatment probes (57) and multiplying by 100 to determine the PND. Thus, the PND
was 93% percent, which represents a large effect size and indicates the interventio n was
effective for these three participants (Gast, 2010).
Discussion
The results of this study reveal that Kindergarten students who struggle in mathematics
benefit from explicit instruction using the C-R-A instructional sequence to learn how to solve
addition facts 0 to 9 problems. These results were obtained following established criteria for
single subject designs (Gast, 2010). One criterion for single case designs is that the intervention
must be systematically manipulated. In this study, the multiple probe design will be used to
stagger the C-R-A intervention. Once intervention begins with the first participant a lesson
mastery criterion of 80 percent across three lessons will be used to determine when the
intervention will begin with other participants.
Additionally, a criterion for single case design is that outcome variables such as baseline
and intervention probes are measured systematically over time by more than one assessor and
that inter-assessor agreement has to be reached for each phase. A minimum percentage
agreement score within the range of 80 percent to 90 percent within each phase of the study is
considered acceptable. For this study, inter-assessor agreement will exceed the 20 percent for
fidelity of treatment and probe scoring.
A third criterion for single subject design is that each phase must have a minimum of
three data points (Gast, 2010). Only three data points were collected during the baseline phase
because stability was reached at this point. Based on meeting the criteria for acceptable multiple
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 20
probe designs and the results to be obtained from the visual analysis related to level, variability,
and trend, there appears to be a causal effect between the high student performance and the
intervention lessons.
This study concurs with the findings of previous researchers that investigated the benefits
of the C-R-A sequence (Strickland & Maccini, 2013; Flores, 2010; & Morin & Miller, 1998).
The current study adds to the C-R-A literature that the intervention results in positive student
performance. One research question which could be answered in a replication study is: what are
the effects of C-R-A instruction of students’ maintenance of fluency in computing addition facts
0 to 9?
Other areas for future research could include the importance of providing explicit
instruction designed to help students who struggle with mathematics. One of the most important
practical implications to arise from this study is the importance of giving explicit instruction for
students with learning disabilities to develop conceptual understanding related to addition facts 0
to 9. Another implication from these lessons is the importance of providing memory tools like
mnemonic devices to assist students in remembering the steps needed to solve the problems.
Also, the emphasis on plotting student performance on the progress charts while providing
feedback to the participants about their performance is significant. This is a positive motivator
for the participants.
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 21
References
Archer, A. L. & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Exploring the foundations of explicit instruction.
Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York: The Guilford Press.
Barbaresk, M.J., Katusic, S.K., Colligan, R.C., Weaver, A.L., & Jacobsen, S.J. (2005). Math
learning disorder: Incidence in a population-based birth cohort. 1976-1982. Rochester
Minenesota Ambulatory Pediatrics. 5, 281-289.
Components of an Effective Lesson. (2014). Clark County School District, Las Vegas,
Nevada. http://ttools.ccsd.net/pdf/ccsd/ccsd_Components_of _an_Effective_
Lesson.pdf
Das, J., & Janzen, C. (2004). Learning math: Basic concepts, math difficulties, and suggestions
for intervention. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2, 191–205.
Flores, M. M. (2010). Using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence to teach subtraction
with regrouping to students at risk for failure. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 195.
Doi: 10.177/0741932508327467.
Flores, M. M. (2010). Teaching subtraction with regrouping to students experiencing difficulty in
mathematics. Preventing school failure: Alternative education for children and youth,
53 (3), 145-152. Doi: 10.3200/psfl.53.145-152.
Gast, D. (2010). Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences. New York:
Routledge.
Gersten, R., Chard, D., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009). A meta-analysis
of mathematics instructional interventions for students with mathematics difficulties.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 295 – 304.
Harris, C. A., Miller, S.P., & Mercer, C.D. (1995). Teaching initial multiplication skills
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 22
to students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 10(3), 180-195.
Hecht, S. A.,Vagi, K. J., Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Why is math so hard for some children? In
Daniel B. (Ed); Mazzocco, Michèle M. (Ed), The Nature and Origins of Mathematical
Learning Difficulties and Disabilities. (pp. 121-132) Baltimore, MD, US: Paul H Brookes
Publishing.
Hough, D. (2004). Teaching mathematical problem solving to middle school students in math,
technology education, and special education classrooms. Research in Middle Level
Education Online, 27(1), 1–17.
Hudson, P. & Miller, S. P. (2006). Designing and Implementing Mathematics Instruction for
Students with Diverse Learning Needs. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Hudson, P., Miller, S. P., & Butler, F. (2006). Adapting and merging explicit instruction within
reform based mathematics classrooms. American Secondary Education. 35(1), 19-32.
Hudson, P. J., Peterson, S. P., Mercer, C. D., & McLeod, P. (1988). Place value instruction.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 20 (3), 72-73.
Mazzocco, M. (2005). Challenges in identifying target skills for math disability screening and
intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 318–323.
Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1992). Addition facts 0 to 9. Lawrence, Kansas: Edge
Enterprises.
Montague, M. (2008). Self-regulated strategies to improve mathematical problem solving for
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 31, 37 – 44.
Morin, V. A., & Miller, S.P. (1998). Teaching multiplication to middle school students with
mental retardation. Education & Treatment of Children (21), 22-36.
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 23
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Panasuk, R. (2010). Three phase ranking framework for assessing conceptual understanding in
algebra using multiple representations. Education. 131(2), 235-257.
Shores, M., & Shannon, D. (2007). The effects of self-regulation, motivation, anxiety, and
attributions on mathematics achievement for fifth and sixth grade students. School
Science & Mathematics. 107(6), 225-236.
Simon, M., (2008). Key developmental understandings in mathematics: A direction for
investigating and establishing learning goals. Mathematical Thinking & Learning. 8(4),
359-371.
Stevens, T., Harris, G., Aguirre-Munoz, & Cobbs, L. (2009). A case study approach to
increasing teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching and strategies for building
students’ math self-efficacy. International Journal of Mathematical Education in
Science & Technology 40 (7), 903-914.
Strickland, T. K., & Maccini, P. (2013). The effects of the concrete-representational-abstract
integration strategy on the ability of students with learning disabilities to multiply linear
expressions within area problems. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 142. Doi:
10.1177/0741932512441712
Taymans, J. M., Swanson, H. L., Schwarz, R L., Gregg, J., Hock, M., Gerber, P. J. (2009).
Learning to achieve: A review of the research literature on serving adults with learning
disabilities. National Institute for Literacy, (p. 260).
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 25
Table 2. Participant Demographic Table.
Demographics
Julie Ricky Jesse
Ethnicity Hispanic Hispanic White
Gender Female Male Male
Grade Kindergarten Kindergarten Kindergarten
Age 5.5 5.5 5.8
Mathematics
Achievement
18 on the KTEA 14 on the KTEA 15 on the KTEA
Identified for RTI No Yes Yes
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 26
Table 3. Mean Percentage Scores, Standard Deviations, and Percentage Point Gain Scores
Participant Baseline M/SD Intervention M/SD Percentage Point Gain Score
Julie 55/15 92.00/6.32 92.00
Ricky 0/0 89.09/12.21 82.76
Jesse 0/0 90.00/10.00 90.00
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 27
Figure 1. Sample Baseline Probe.
Baseline Probe A
0 +1
1 +1
3 +2
2 +1
5 +4
4 +6
1
+6
3
+3
2
+1
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 28
Figure 2. Task Analysis Table for C-R-A Instruction for Addition Facts 0 to 9.
Student Name: ________________________________ Grade: __________________
Instructional Task: Addition of numbers 0 through 9 using the Concrete-Representational-Abstract
mathematical sequence.
Student Performance: Scored on a practice sheet on a 0 to 100 grading scale.
KEY: B – Baseline M – Modeled prompt G – Guided I – Independent
Task Analysis Steps:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1.Baseline condition: no instruction
Performance on baseline probe.
B
2. Concrete lessons using explicit instruction.
Practice sheet 1.
M
G
I
3. Concrete lessons using explicit instruction.
Performance on practice sheet 2.
M
G
I
4. Concrete lessons using explicit instruction.
Performance on practice sheet 3.
M
G
I
5. Representational lessons using explicit
instruction. Performance on practice sheet 4.
M
G
I
6. Representational lessons using explicit
instruction. Performance on practice sheet 5.
M
G
I
7. Representational lessons using explicit
instruction. Performance on practice sheet 6.
M
G
I
8. Abstract lessons using explicit instruction.
Performance on practice sheet 7.
M
G
I
9. Abstract lessons using explicit instruction.
Performance on practice sheet 8.
M
G
I
10. Abstract lessons using explicit instruction.
Performance on practice sheet 9.
M
G
I
11. Abstract lessons using explicit instruction.
Performance on practice sheet 10.
I
12. Generalization using the Frog Game.
Students demonstrate skill
I
13. Generalization using the Frog Game.
Students demonstrate skill.
I
14. Generalization using the Frog Game.
Students demonstrate skill.
I
CONCRETE-REPRESENTATIONAL-ABSTRACT MATH SEQUENCE 29
Figure 3. Multiple Probe Across Participants Design
.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Baseline C-R-A InterventionJulie
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Baseline C-R-A InterventionRicky
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
Baseline C-R-A Intervention Generalization
Jesse
Generalization
Generalization