The effects of cognitive strategy instruction on math problem solving of middle-school students of varying ability

Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 106, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 469-481

  Montague, Marjorie ^a   Krawec, Jennifer ^a   Enders, Craig ^b   Dietz, Samantha ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Mathematics; Problem solving; Strategy instruction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84921506056     PISSN: 00220663     EISSN: 19392176     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0035176     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Bailey, R., Day, R., Frey, P., Howard, A. C., Hutchens, D. T., McClain, K., . . . Willard, T. (2004). Mathematics applications and concepts. New York, NY: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
2. Berardi-Coletta, B., Dominowski, R. L., Buyer, L. S., & Rellinger, E. R. (1995). Metacognition and problem solving: A process-oriented approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 21, 205-223.
3. Buell, M. J., Hallam, R., & Gamel-McCormick, M. (1999). A survey of general and special education teachers' perceptions and inservice needs concerning inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46, 143-156. doi:10.1080/103491299100597
4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
5. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Mathematics: Standards for mathematical practice. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice
6. Coughlin, J., & Montague, M. (2011). The effects of cognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem solving of adolescents with spina bifida. Journal of Special Education, 45, 171-183. doi:10.1177/ 0022466910363913
7. Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
8. Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevelmodels: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121-138. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
9. Florida Department of Education. (2006, May 23). 2006 FCAT: Reading and mathematics grades 3-10. Retrieved from http://fcat.fldoe.org/ mediapacket/2006/pdf/FCAT_06_media_complete.pdf
10. Florida Department of Education. (2012). Understanding FCAT 2.0 reports: Spring 2012. Retrieved from http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcat2/pdf/ s12uf2r.pdf
11. Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2009). Bayesian data analysis. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
12. Glazzard, J. (2011). Perceptions of the barriers to effective inclusion in one primary school: Voices of teachers and teaching assistants. British Journal of Learning Support, 26, 56-63. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9604.2011.01478.x
13. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323-334). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
14. Grouws, D. (1992). Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. New York, NY: MacMillan.
15. Harcourt Assessment. (2007). Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test: Reading and Mathematics technical report. San Antonio, TX: Author.
16. Hedges, L. V. (2007). Effect sizes in cluster-randomized designs. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32, 341-370.
17. Hudson, P., & Miller, S. P. (2006). Designing and implementing mathematics instruction for students with diverse learning needs. New York, NY: Pearson.
18. Krawec, J. (in press). Problem representation and mathematical problem solving of students of varying ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
19. Kroll, D. L., & Miller, T. (1993). Insights from research on mathematical problem solving in the middle grades. In D. T. Owens (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: Middle grades mathematics (pp. 58-77). New York, NY: MacMillan.
20. Mayer, R. E. (1985). Mathematical ability. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Human abilities: Information processing approach (pp. 127-150). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
21. Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metcognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26, 49-63. doi:10.1023/A: 1003088013286
22. Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on mathematical problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 230-248. doi:10.1177/002221949202500404
23. Montague, M. (2003). Solve It! A mathematical problem-solving instructional program. Reston, VA: Exceptional Innovations.
24. Montague, M., & Applegate, B. (1993). Mathematical problem-solving characteristics of middle school students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 175-201. doi:10.1177/ 002246699302700203
25. Montague, M., Applegate, B., & Marquard, K. (1993). Cognitive strategy instruction and mathematical problem-solving performance of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8, 223-232.
26. Montague, M., & Bos, C. (1986). The effect of cognitive strategy training on verbal math problem solving performance of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 26-33. doi:10.1177/ 002221948601900107
27. Montague, M., & Dietz, S. (2009). Evaluating the evidence base for cognitive strategy instruction and mathematical problem solving. Exceptional Children, 75, 285-302.
28. Montague, M., Enders, C., & Castro, M. (2006). Academic and behavioral outcomes for students at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 30, 87-96.
29. Montague, M., Enders, C., Cavendish, W., & Castro, M. (2011). Academic and behavioral trajectories for at-risk adolescents in urban schools. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 141-156.
30. Montague, M., Enders, C., & Dietz, S. (2009). [Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on the math problem solving of middle school students]. Unpublished raw data.
31. Montague, M., Enders, C., & Dietz, S. (2011). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on math problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 262-272. doi: 10.1177/0731948711421762
32. Montague, M., Penfield, R. D., Enders, C., & Huang, J. (2010). Curriculum-based measurement of math problem solving: A methodology and rationale for establishing equivalence of scores. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 39-52. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.08.002
33. Montague, M., Warger, C., & Morgan, H. (2000). Solve It! Strategy instruction to improve mathematical problem solving. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 110-116. doi:10.1207/SLDRP1502_7
34. Morgan, P. (2009). The trajectories of kindergarten children's mathematical achievement. Paper presented at the annual IES project directors' meeting, Washington, DC.
35. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 -2012). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
36. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). PISA 2012. Assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving, and financial literacy. Retrieved from. doi: 10.1787/9789264190511-en
37. Osterlind, S. J. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Polya, G. (1986). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1945)
39. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: Good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Vasta & G. Whitehurst (Eds.), Annals of child development (Vol. 5,pp. 89-129). New York, NY: JAI Press.
40. Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Getting ready for inclusion: Is the stageset? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10, 169-179. Retrievedfrom http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5826
41. Swanson, H. L. (1993). Principles and procedures in strategy use. In L. Meltzer (Ed.), Strategy assessment and instruction for students with learning disabilities (pp. 61-92). Austin, TX: ProO-Ed.
42. Swanson, H. L. (2001). Research on interventions for adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related to higherorder processing. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 331-348.
43. Swanson, H. L., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of learning disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
44. U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The Condition of Education 2010. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2010028
45. van Garderen, D., & Montague, M. (2003). Visual-spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 246-254. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00079
46. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48. Yell, M. L., & Walker, D. W. (2010). The legal basis of response to intervention: Analysis and implications. Exceptionality, 18, 124-137. doi:10.1080/09362835.2010.491741