Response to Specific Training for Students With Different Levels of Mathematical Difficulties

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of specific, individualized training for students with different levels of mathematical difficulties. Fifty-four students, with either severe or mild math difficulties, were assigned to individualized training or to a control condition. Ten students with severe math difficulties (“dyscalculia”) and 17 with mild math difficulties in the individualized training conditions were trained to improve their accuracy and fluency in math, compared to 9 students with severe math difficulties and 18 with mild math difficulties that were in the general training group (control condition). Students in the individualized training condition (both with dyscalculia and with mild math difficulties) outperformed the control groups after the training and at a later follow-up in almost all math components. Overall, this study supports the feasibility of treating both severe and mild mathematical accuracy and fluency difficulties with specific, customized training.

A systematic review of interventions for children presenting with dyscalculia in primary schools

“…Studies that were included in the systematic review are those with the quality of evidence rated from 50% to 100%. Of these 11 articles, 6 scored between 50-59% (Re et al, 2014;Fuchs et al, 2006;Leh & Jitendra, 2013;Swanson, Orosco & Lussier, 2014;Faramarzi & Sadri, 2014;Powel et al, 2010) and 5 studies scored between 60-69% (Bryant et al, 2008;Rouselle & Noel, 2008;Swanson, Lussier & Orosco, 2013;Fuchs at el., 2008;Bryant et al, 2014). The studies that were excluded at this level failed to explicitly state and motivate the method of analysis used in the studies and the appropriateness of the method of analysis relative to the research question.…”

“…Most studies focused on determining and assessing the value or efficacy of interventions for children presenting with dyscalculia in primary schools (Re, Pedron, Tressoldi & Lucangeli, 2014;Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlet, Powell, Capizzi & Seethaler, 2006;Swanson, Orosco & Lussier, 2014;Fuchs, Seethaler, Powell, Fuchs, Hamlett & Fletcher, 2008). However, two studies focused on determining and evaluating the effectiveness of the Tier 3 intervention and a computer-mediated instruction (CMI) and teacher-mediated instruction (TMI) for students struggling in mathematics (Bryant et al, 2014;Leh & Jitendra, 2013).…”

“…However, two studies included student participants with either severe mathematical difficulties or mild mathematical difficulties (Powell at al., 2010;Re at al., 2014) whereas the study by Fuchs et al (2006) had children with concurrent risk for math disability and reading disability as their participants. A summary of the sample/participants of the intervention studies included in the review are provided in Table 4.2.…”

“…Two studies were conducted in Central Texas (Bryant et al, 2008;Bryant et al, 2014), one in Italy (Re et al, 2014), one in Belgium (Rouselle & Noel, 2008), one in a Metropolitan Public School (Fuchs et al, 2006), one in Northeast United States (Leh & Jitendra, 2013), one in Isfahan city in…”

“…Of the 11 studies included in the review, 4 used an experimental design (Rouselle & Noel, 2008;Powel et al, 2010;Re et al, 2014;Faramarzi & Sadri, 2014), 1 study used a regression discontinuity design (Bryant et al, 2008). Bryant et al (2014) study used a multibaseline design whereas Swanson, Lussier and Orosco's (2013) study used a covariate interaction design.…”