The Effects of Instruction in Solving Mathematical Word Problems for Students with Learning Problems: A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
This article provides a synthesis of word-problem-solving intervention research with samples of students with learning problems (i.e., mild disabilities and at risk for mathematics failure). The effectiveness of word-problem-solving instruction in 25 outcome studies was examined across student characteristics (e.g., grade, IQ); instructional features (e.g., intervention approach, treatment length); methodological features; skill maintenance; and generalization components. Separate analyses were performed for group-design studies and single-subject studies using standardized mean change and percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND), respectively. The overall mean weighted effect size ( d ) and PND for word-problem-solving instruction were positive across the group-design studies (ES = +.89) and single-subject studies (PND = 89%). In addition, positive effects for skill maintenance and generalization were found for group design (ES = +.78 and +.84, respectively) and single-subject studies (PND = 100%). Computer-assisted instruction was found to be most effective for group-design studies. Effects for representation techniques and strategy training were found to be significantly higher than the "other" approach for both group-design and single-subject studies. Long-term (> 1 month) intervention effects were significantly higher than short- or intermediate-term interventions for group-design studies, whereas both long-term and intermediate treatments were seen to be more effective t…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Xin and Jitendra (1999) found computer-assisted instruction to be most effective.
“Xin and Jitendra (1999) found computer-assisted instruction to be most effective.”
From Mathematics Interventions for Children with Special Educational Needs: A Meta-Analysis (2003) · cites this paper as Xin and Jitendra (1999)
Studies with a single-subject design produced higher effect sizes than those with a group design.
“Studies with a single-subject design produced higher effect sizes than those with a group design.”
From Mathematics Interventions for Children with Special Educational Needs: A Meta-Analysis (2003) · cites this paper as Xin & Jitendra, 1999
The finding that problem-solving interventions for students with mild mental retardation were more effective than those for students with learning disabilities is consistent with other meta-analyses.
“This is consistent with the findings of other meta-analyses (e.g., Xin & Jitendra, 1999).”
From Mathematics Interventions for Children with Special Educational Needs: A Meta-Analysis (2003) · cites this paper as Xin & Jitendra, 1999
Cites
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023 · see citing works
Synthesizing standardized mean‐change measures
Becker, B. J. (1988) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.1988.tb00901.x · Cited by 889 · see citing works
Jitendra, A. K., & Hoff, K. (1996) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/002221949602900410 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Self-citationStrategy Instruction in Mathematics
Goldman, S. R. (1989) · Learning Disability Quarterly · doi:10.2307/1510251 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Mathematics Education and Students with Learning Disabilities: Introduction to the Special Series
Rivera, D. P. (1997) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/002221949703000101 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654309334431 · Cited by 689 · see citing works
Mathematics Interventions for Children with Special Educational Needs: A Meta-Analysis
Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2003) · Remedial and Special Education · doi:10.1177/07419325030240020501 · Cited by 549 · see citing works
Ran, H., Kim, N. J., & Secada, W. G. (2022) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12611 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
- Authors
- Xin, Y. P., & Jitendra, A. K.
- Affiliations
- Lehigh University (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Special Education
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 207-225
- ISSN
- 0022-4669 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4764
- OpenAlex
- W2080854742
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 6.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Special Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › Mathematics Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Keywords
- mathematical word problem solving, students with learning disabilities, mild disabilities, at-risk students, intervention effectiveness, skill retention, generalization, computer-assisted instruction, representation techniques, strategy training, intervention duration, mathematics failure
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review