Mathematics Instruction for Students With Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of Instructional Components

TLDR

The purpose of this meta‑analysis was to synthesize findings from 42 interventions on instructional approaches that enhance mathematics proficiency of students with learning disabilities. The authors examined four instructional component categories—curriculum design, formative assessment feedback to teachers, formative feedback to students, and peer‑assisted instruction—and used hierarchical multiple regressions to assess their conditional effectiveness. Significant positive effects were found for all components except student feedback with goal‑setting and peer‑assisted learning, with effect sizes ranging from 0.21 to 1.56, and teaching students to use heuristics and explicit instruction yielded the largest practically and statistically significant gains. Limitations of the study, suggestions for future research, and applications for improvement of current practice are discussed.

Abstract

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to synthesize findings from 42 interventions (randomized control trials and quasi-experimental studies) on instructional approaches that enhance the mathematics proficiency of students with learning disabilities. We examined the impact of four categories of instructional components: (a) approaches to instruction and/or curriculum design, (b) formative assessment data and feedback to teachers on students' mathematics performance, (c) formative data and feedback to students with LD on their performance, and (d) peer-assisted mathematics instruction. All instructional components except for student feedback with goal-setting and peer-assisted learning within a class resulted in significant mean effects ranging from 0.21 to 1.56. We also examined the effectiveness of these components conditionally, using hierarchical multiple regressions. Two instructional components provided practically and statistically important increases in effect size–teaching students to use heuristics and explicit instruction. Limitations of the study, suggestions for future research, and applications for improvement of current practice are discussed.