This study investigated the differential effects of two problem-solving instructional approaches— schema-based instruction (SBI) and general strategy instruction (GSI)—on the mathematical word problem—solving performance of 22 middle school students who had learning disabilities or were at risk for mathematics failure. Results indicated that the SBI group significantly outperformed the GSI group on immediate and delayed posttests as well as the transfer test. Implications of the study are discussed within the context of the new IDEA amendment and access to the general education curriculum.

The authors conducted design or classroom experiments (R. Gersten, S. Baker, & J. W. Lloyd, 2000) at 2 sites (Pennsylvania and Florida) to test the effectiveness of schema-based instruction (SBI) prior to conducting formal experimental studies.Results of Study 1 conducted in 2 3rdgrade, low-ability classrooms and 1 special education classroom indicated mean score improvements from pretest to posttest on word problem solving and computation fluency measures. In addition, student perceptions of SBI according to a strategy satisfaction questionnaire revealed SBI as effective in helping solve word problems. Results of Study 2, which included a heterogeneous (high-, average-, and low-achieving) sample of 3rd graders, also revealed student improvement on the word problem solving and computation fluency measures. However, the outcomes were not as positive in Study 2 as in Study 1. Lessons learned from the 2 studies are discussed with regard to teaching and learning mathematical word problem solving for different groups of students.

This study investigated the extent to which teaching the recommended methods for problem-solving presented in third-grade mathematics textbooks adhered to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards and instructional design criteria. Results indicated that there were more variations than similarities within and across textbooks in meeting the Standards. In terms of the instructional design criteria, most were satisfied in only two textbooks and few discrepancies were evident across the textbooks that were evaluated. For example, instructional design criteria of clarity of objectives, sufficient teaching examples, and nonexamples were met in less than half of the textbooks. Additional findings and implications for practitioners meeting the diverse needs of students with learning problems are discussed.

No abstract

We previously conducted a curriculum analysis of third-grade mathematics textbooks aimed at investigating the extent to which teaching the recommended methods for problem solving adhered to the 2000 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Standards and instructional design criteria. In this article, we extend the previous findings by comparing the teaching of problem solving presented in the same textbooks published after the 2000 NCTM Standards to that in older editions published before the Standards were in effect. Results indicated that the changes in textbooks varied with regard to meeting the different Standards. However, results for instructional design criteria indicated more consistent changes, favoring the textbook series published after 2000. Additional findings and implications for practice are discussed.