Running head: MATH INTERVENTIONS

Math Interventions
Melissa Martin
University of Calgary

MATH INTERVENTIONS

Children with learning disabilities can be found in almost every classroom. It is

estimated that between 5 and 8% of children have difficulties in mathematics (Fuchs et
al., 2003; Geary, 2004; Wendling & Mather, 2009). Neurological impairments, decreased
intellectual functioning, motivation, anxiety, acquisition and application of math
strategies can all play a part in difficulties with mathematics (Wendling & Mather, 2009).
Children who display significant difficulties overtime in mathematics and obtain low
achievement scores in math relative to their IQ can be diagnosed with a mathematical
learning disability (MLD). In order to help these children improve in their areas of
difficulty in math, proper mathematical intervention strategies need to be implemented.
The focus of this paper is to review the neuropsychological and cognitive background of
MLD. Then the different cognitive features of math will be reviewed along with some
examples of intervention strategies that target those areas. Finally, a study by Burns
(2011) involving several mathematical cognitive strategies will be evaluated for its
effectiveness through Upah and Tillys (2002) best practices model of interventions.
Neuropsychological and Cognitive Theory of MLD
In order to properly identify and assess math disabilities, it is important to have a
thorough understanding of the cognitive and neuropsychological factors behind these
disorders (Wendling & Mather, 2009). For almost a century, neuropsychologists
associated numerical and mathematical processing with the parietal cortex of the brain,
particularly within the angular gyrus (Ansari, 2010). Ansari (2010) analyzed previous
neuropsychological research in regards to MLD and found that the common notion was
that the brain circuits that are responsible for different aspects of numerical and
mathematical processing in adults are also present in children and they can be

MATH INTERVENTIONS

differentially impaired, which can lead to different subtypes of developmental disorders

of numerical and mathematical processing.
Geary (2004) proposed three developmental subtypes of MLD: procedural
subtype, semantic memory subtype, and visuospatial subtype. The procedural memory
subtype identifies students who commit errors in basic mathematics skills such as
counting, numerical operations, and computation. Children with MLD tend to use
immature developmental strategies such as finger counting and demonstrate frequent
errors in the execution of mathematical procedures, especially problems involving
multiple steps of calculation (Geary, 2004). These students have difficulty sequencing
multiple steps in complex procedures and often have a poor understanding of the
underlying concepts associated with these calculations. Deficits in working memory
have demonstrated interference in the completion of procedural math problems,
particularly involving information representation and manipulation in the language
system (Geary, 2004). Research suggests that children with this procedural subtype
demonstrate an association with left hemispheric dysfunction and, in some cases, with
prefrontal dysfunction, especially for those who have sequencing problems (Geary,
2004).
The semantic memory subtype involves difficulties with memorizing
mathematical facts and having problems retrieving them from long-term memory. Geary
(2004) also noted that there can also be disruptions in retrieval from long-term memory
associated with one operation type, such as multiplication, whereas retrieval from other
operation types appear to be unaffected. Any information that is retrieved will often
result in errors. This subtype appears to be associated with left hemispheric dysfunction,
possibly by the posterior regions for one form of deficit and the prefrontal regions for

MATH INTERVENTIONS

another deficit, such as the basal ganglia (Geary, 2004). Dehaene and Cohen, L. (1997)
also suggested that the retrieval of arithmetic facts is supported by a system of neural
structures, including the left basal ganglia and the left parieto-occipito-temporal regions,
that appear to sustain phonetic and semantic representations and are engaged during
increment tasks such as counting. Any damage in these structures would lead to
difficulty accessing previously known arithmetic facts (Dehaene & Cohen, 1997).
The visuospatial subtype is associated with the visual elements of mathematics
such as geometry, two and three-dimensional shapes, and complex word problems,
especially those that involve diagrams. Students with deficits in this area will have
difficulty representing and understanding spatial mathematical information (Geary,
2004). Visuospatial dysfunction is associated with right hemispheric dysfunction,
particularly in the posterior regions (Geary, 2004). Zorzi, Priftis, and Umilta (2002)
determined that individuals with an injury to the right parietal cortex showed a deficit in
spatial orientation.
The central executive controls the attentional and inhibitory processes needed to
use procedures during problem solving (Geary, 2004). Overall, these three subtypes of
MLD are related to a combination of disrupted functions of the central executive in
regards to poor attention control, reduced inhibition of irrelevant associations, and
difficulty with information representation and manipulation of language (Geary, 2004).
These problems can create developmental delays and deficits that can inhibit a childs
understanding of mathematics by interfering with their working memory, retrieval from
long-term memory, and dysfunction of visuospatial processing of mathematical concepts.
Difficulties are seen in monitoring, sequencing the steps of problem solving, and in
switching and evaluating new strategies (Geary, 2004).

MATH INTERVENTIONS

Procedural, Conceptual, and Problem Solving Cognitive Levels in Math

The Alberta Education (2012) secondary mathematics curriculum has reflected
three levels of cognitive assessment in mathematics: procedural, conceptual, and problem
solving. Procedural assessment tests the students knowledge of mathematical procedures
that involve recognition, execution, and verification of appropriate calculation steps
(Alberta Education, 2012). A higher level of mathematical cognitive ability is conceptual
assessment. This domain goes beyond a recall of definitions and basic calculations by
comparing, contrasting, labeling, verbalizing, and defining concepts; and identifying and
generating examples and counter-examples as well as properties of a given concept;
recognizing the various meanings and interpretations of concepts; and defending
procedures and personal strategies (Alberta Education, 2012). Students are able to
integrate their knowledge of various concepts by using models, symbols, and diagrams.
Problem solving is the highest cognitive level of assessment and is achieved by allowing
students to adapt and extend their procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics
by using strategies to solve unique and unfamiliar problems (Alberta Education, 2012).
In order for students to be successful at problem solving in mathematics, they first
need to develop strong procedural and conceptual cognitive skills. Burns (2011)
highlighted that the National Research Council defined math proficiency as being
composed of both procedural fluency and conceptual understanding. Procedural fluency
is the understanding of the rules and steps to solve math problems fluently while
conceptual understanding is the comprehension of the relations and foundational
knowledge that underlie math problems. Burns (2011) acknowledged that it is unclear as
to which cognitive foundation develops first but they are interrelated and are needed in
order to solve application problems that involve higher level thinking skills.

MATH INTERVENTIONS

It is possible for a student to understand the underlying principles and operations

of a problem (conceptual knowledge) but cannot retrieve the stored information to solve
the problem (procedural fluency) (Burns, 2011). Conversely, a student can memorize and
solve math facts fluently but they do not understand the meaning behind the math concept
and cannot apply this knowledge to more advanced problems (Burns, 2011).
When implementing an intervention strategy, it is important to match an appropriate
intervention program to the specific cognitive or academic deficits that need to be
improved (Owen & Fuchs, 2002). If a student is having trouble with procedural fluency,
there should be intervention strategies targeting the speed and accuracy of calculations.
If the problem is with conceptual understanding, the intervention must provide examples
that help the student recognize the reasoning behind different calculations.
Similarly, Burns, Codding, Boice, and Lukito (2010) identified four hierarchical
phases of learning math: acquisition, fluency, generalization, and application. In regards
to Alberta Educations three cognitive levels of assessment, acquisition and fluency
would be categorized as procedural, generalization would fall under conceptual, and
application would be considered problem solving.
Procedural, Conceptual, and Problem Solving Intervention Strategies for Math
In order for an intervention strategy to improve performance on procedural
assessment problems, a student needs to be able to acquire the knowledge to be able to
solve these problems fluently. Students who fail to make adequate progress in
mathematics, especially with procedural questions, frequently have problems with
memory and executive functioning (Forbringer & Fuchs, 2014). Information must be
introduced in smaller chunks so that it is easier for them to retain. Metacognition
strategies such as self-regulation, selecting appropriate strategies, coordinating attention,

MATH INTERVENTIONS

and rehearsal are also effective to use when there are problems with working memory
(Forbringer & Fuchs, 2014). Explicit instruction by teachers has been found to be the
most effective with these students (Forbringer & Fuchs, 2014). They can engage the
student by applying the math lesson to a real-life example, review any prerequisite skills
needed, model strategies a variety of ways, provide multiple examples so they can
establish a pattern, offer guided practice and check over the students steps, then allow
the student to work independently, check on their progress, and conclude the lesson by
summarizing the main points (Forbringer & Fuchs, 2014).
Intervention for conceptual problems can focus more on further development of
fluency and being able to recognize similar and contrasting questions that apply to the
same math principles. Meaningful problem solving requires students to have a strong
understanding of number relationships and basic operations (Forbringer & Fuchs, 2014).
A solid foundation of procedural knowledge is needed to help with conceptual questions.
Drill exercises help develop computational fluency, especially when it is timed
(Forbringer & Fuchs, 2014). This can help eliminate the use of immature strategies such
as counting on fingers and can improve memory retrieval of math facts. To increase
fluency and conceptualization with number operations, visual diagrams can be used,
times tables to show the visual pattern of multiplying specific numbers together, and
number cubes and blocks can be used to show numbers with bases of 10. Mnemonics,
songs, and raps can be used to make it easier to remember math rules such as the order of
operations acronym BEDMAS (Forbringer & Fuchs, 2014).
In order to be able to problem solve in mathematics, students need to be able to
apply their procedural and conceptual knowledge to translate word sentences into a
mathematical equation. This can be difficult if the student is lacking in any of those

MATH INTERVENTIONS

cognitive areas. Teachers can instruct students to read over the question for clarity, then
mark important words that indicate math operations, translate those key words into a
mathematical equation, calculate the answer using the proper steps, and check the answer
to see if it make sense in regards to the word problem (Forbringer & Fuchs, 2014).
Twelve-Step Quality Indicator Model of Burns (2011) Matching of Conceptual and
Procedural Math Interventions
Upah and Tilly (2002) developed a 12-step quality indicator model as a best
standard for designing, implementing and evaluating quality interventions. This model
contains four problem solving stages: problem identification, problem analysis, plan
implementation, and program evaluation. The 12 intervention components are contained
within each stage: behavioral definition, baseline data, problem validation, problem
analysis steps, goal setting, intervention plan development, measurement strategy,
decision-making plan, progress monitoring, formative evaluation, treatment integrity, and
summative evaluation. Burns (2011) completed a study that matched procedural and
conceptual math interventions to students skill deficits. This study will be evaluated
using Upah and Tillys (2002) 12 step model to assess the effectiveness of procedural and
cognitive intervention strategies in terms of what skills are needed to be developed.
Problem Identification. Burns (2011) provided a clear objective of his study by
identifying the purpose to compare the results of initially mismatched conceptual and
procedural math interventions to two students who had the opposite cognitive deficit.
Then they would receive the correct intervention and their results would be compared.
Baseline data was collected from both students to determine the level of their initial
understanding of the target math skill. The target behavior level was not explicitly
described but a significant improvement in their previous abilities was favored. It is

MATH INTERVENTIONS

unclear what range would deem it to be a significant change. An important problem with
this research design is that it was a nonexperimental case design involving only two
subjects. There is no comparison of their baseline data to other students in their own age
group, making it difficult to determine problem validation. The lack of subjects in this
study does not make the results valid across a population of students. A larger sample
would have to be taken in order for the results to be more representative of the targeted
population. The behavioral definition identified that both subjects (a 10 year old boy
named James and an 8 year old boy named Thomas) are struggling with math.
Specifically, James has a procedural deficit in double-digit multiplication and Thomas
has a conceptual problem with single digit addition.
Problem Analysis. The initial data that was collected from James and Thomas
math teachers determined two specific curriculum outcomes that they are struggling with
as well as the initial assessments used to collect baseline data. Those initial assessments
were constructed from previous research and from outside recommendations for
instructionally useful math assessments. It is unknown if Thomas and James have other
areas of weakness in the math curriculum since this study focused on the specific topics
that were recommended by their teachers. It is not clear exactly why Thomas and James
are experiencing difficulty in these areas of math (i.e. inattention, lack of motivation,
problems with memory, etc.) even though their cognitive deficit was identified.
However, Burns (2011) did complete further assessment beyond baseline data to
determine the effects of the wrong cognitive intervention strategy and how it did not help
either subject. The subsequent sample data of the correct cognitive intervention does
show a marked improvement when it is implemented, but this does not provide adequate
support of the effectiveness of the correct intervention since the sample size is too small.

MATH INTERVENTIONS

10

Additional research is needed to more accurately evaluate the intervention methods used
in this study (Burns, 2011).
Plan Implementation. Burns (2011) did plan an effective intervention strategy
through the collection of data from the boys math teachers and their initial assessments
to determine what type of cognitive intervention they would need. Utilizing the incorrect
intervention at first helped to show how important it is to match the correct interventions
to the students, which was one of the goals of this study. The other goal was to show a
significant improvement when the correct strategy was implemented, which was also
demonstrated. The data collection and analysis procedures were clearly defined. Data
was collected by recording the number of correct answers per minute using curriculumbased measures for math (CBM-M) with a total of 40 math problems. Data was collected
twice each week and the students had 2 minutes to complete them. The results were
recorded and graphed to monitor their weekly progress. Accuracy of the data collection
was ensured by having the collectors trained in the CBM-M and by having approximately
25% of the CBM-M probes scored by a second observer to calculate interobserver
agreement (Burns, 2011). It is difficult to know how significant their overall
improvement is using this intervention strategy since there are no results from a larger
sample of the subjects population. Despite this, the studies met the standards of best
practice in plan implementation.
Program Evaluation. Progress monitoring was conducted twice a week
throughout the 12 weeks of collecting baseline data as well as the data from the incorrect
and correct intervention strategies. The only types of data that were collected were from
the initial teacher interviews and subsequent marking of the CBM-M assessments. There
were no recordings of observational behavior or alternative assessments. Integrity was

MATH INTERVENTIONS

11

ensured with 100% agreement between those CBM-M assessments that were scored by
two different observers. When the procedural intervention and assessment tools were
used on Thomas, who initially demonstrated conceptual deficits, he did not show any
improvement from his baseline data. However, when the conceptual intervention
strategies and assessment tools were used, his performance increased significantly. The
same was found for James who displayed procedural deficits. The interventions,
assessments, and measurements have demonstrated to work effectively to meet the goals
of this study. Burns (2011) did concede that additional research is needed to evaluate the
conceptual assessment that was used in this study. It was unclear if the conceptual
assessment was specifically testing the students understanding of an overall math
concept or if it was also measuring elements of procedural knowledge on some questions.
Additional psychometric information regarding these conceptual assessments is needed,
including the reliability of the data and the validity of the resulting decisions (Burns,
2011). There was no indication that the students progress would be monitored further or
that they would receive subsequent interventions after this study. In general, the study
met acceptable levels in program evaluation to meet best practice standards and provides
a beneficial example of an area of mathematics intervention that requires further study.
Conclusion
MLD is a complex diagnosis where different regions of the brain can be affected
and involve impairments in executive functioning, long-term and working memory.
Cognitive research has identified different levels of cognitive ability in regards to
successfully retaining, understanding, and applying mathematics to real-life situations.
Research is needed to determine how deficits in these areas can inhibit student
performance in math. From that research, appropriate evidence-based intervention

MATH INTERVENTIONS

12

strategies can target these different cognitive discrepancies and hopefully provide
students with learning tools to help them succeed in math. Upah and Tillys (2002)
evaluation of intervention strategies is an effective tool for educators and mental health
professionals to determine what interventions are more useful for children, particularly in
mathematics. Eventually, a skill-by-treatment interaction (Burns et al., 2010) could be
implemented where math skill levels of students are matched to successful interventions
that match that skill level. This interface of mathematical testing and intervention can
provide immediate help to those who need it most.

References
Alberta Education (2012). Information bulletin mathematics 30-1 2012-2013 diploma
examinations program. Retrieved from

MATH INTERVENTIONS

13

http://education.alberta.ca/media/6738237/07%20math30-1%20info%20bulletin
%202012-13%20print_nolabel.pdf
Ansari, D. (2010). Neurocognitive approaches to developmental disorders of numerical
and mathematical cognition: The perils of neglecting the role of development.
Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 123-129.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.06.001
Burns, M.K. (2011). Matching math interventions to students skill deficits: A preliminary
investigation of a conceptual and procedural heuristic. Assessment for Effective
Intervention, 36(4), 210-218. doi: 10.1177/1534508411413255
Burns, M.K., Codding, R.S., Boice, C.H., & Lukito, G. (2010). Meta-analysis of
acquisition and fluency math interventions with instructional and frustration level
skills: Evidence for a skill-by-treatment interaction. School Psychology Review,
39(1), 69-83.
Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (1997). Cerebral pathways for calculation: Double dissociation
between rote verbal and quantitative knowledge of arithmetic. Cortex, 33, 219250.
Forbringer, L.L. & Fuchs, W.W. (2014). RTI in math: Evidence-based interventions for
struggling students. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Fancis.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C., Owen, R., & Schroeter, K.
(2003). Enhancing third-grade students mathematical problem solving with selfregulated learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 306-315.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.306
Geary, D. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
37(4), 4-15. doi:10.1177/00222194040370010201

MATH INTERVENTIONS

14

Owen, R., & Fuchs, L. (2002). Mathematical problem-solving strategy instruction for
third-grade students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education,
23(5), 268-278. doi:10.1177/07419325020230050201
Upah, K., & Tilly, W. (2002). Best practices in designing, implementing, and evaluating
quality interventions. In Thomas, A. & Grimes, J. (Eds.), Best practices in school
psychology (pp. 483-501). Bethesda, MD: NASP Publications.
Wendling, B., & Mather, N. (2009). Essentials of evidence-based academic interventions.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Zorzi, M., Priftis, K. & Umilta, C. (2002). Neglect disrupts the mental number line.
Nature, 417, 138.