SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 23 Sayı: 1

Math Problem Solving Interventions for Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Öğrenme Güçlüğü Olan Ortaokul Öğrencilerine Uygulanan Matematik Problemi Çözme Müdahaleleri: Kapsamlı Alanyazın İncelenmesi

Ufuk Özkubat(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9626-5112
Alpaslan Karabulut(BOLU ABANT İZZET BAYSAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-7355-5109
Cihan Sert(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5602-1156
Pages
191–218
Publication Date
2022-03-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Accordingly, it will be useful for experts working with students with learning disabilities to create intervention programs that include strategies to facilitate students' problem solving successfully, such as problem solving stages, schematic modifiers, cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and think-aloud protocols.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: Examining the research on math problem solving interventions for students with learning disabilities is important for identifying the interventions that will support these students.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aimed to review math problem solving interventions for middle school students with learning disabilities in the last 20 years, list the characteristics of the studies descriptively, and examine them in terms of quality indicators.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Accordingly, it will be useful for experts working with students with learning disabilities to create intervention programs that include strategies to facilitate students' problem solving successfully, such as problem solving stages, schematic modifiers, cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and think-aloud protocols.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:öğrenme güçlüğü · matematik problemi çözme müdahaleleri · matematik öğretimi

Abstract

Introduction: Examining the research on math problem solving interventions for students with learning disabilities is important for identifying the interventions that will support these students. Assessing intervention studies in terms of certain quality standards provides information about the replication of applications and the reliability of the results. This study aimed to review math problem solving interventions for middle school students with learning disabilities in the last 20 years, list the characteristics of the studies descriptively, and examine them in terms of quality indicators. Method: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine articles were selected. They were investigated in the context of descriptive analysis and quality indicators. The studies were analysed descriptively. Their characteristics were identified. The studies were examined, and their quality levels were determined based on the quality indicators specified for the research using single-subject experimental designs. Findings: Direct instruction, concrete-semi-concrete-abstract strategy, schema-based strategy, self-regulation strategies and hint cards, STAR strategy, open expression method, LAP strategy, visual strategies, Solve It!, and the SOLVE strategy were used for teaching problem solving skills as target skills. The general findings related to quality indicators showed that all studies met the specified criteria regarding the baseline level of basic quality indicators, experimental control/internal validity and external validity. Considering other components, it was observed that the study ranging from 44% to 78% met the specified criteria. Only one study was met all quality indicator items. Discussion: The findings were discussed and suggestions were provided for teachers and researchers. Accordingly, it will be useful for experts working with students with learning disabilities to create intervention programs that include strategies to facilitate students' problem solving successfully, such as problem solving stages, schematic modifiers, cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and think-aloud protocols.

Özet

Giriş: Öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilere yönelik matematik problemi çözme müdahaleleri içeren çalışmaların incelenmesi, bu öğrencilere destek sağlayacak uygulamaların belirlenmesi için önemli görülmektedir. Ayrıca müdahale çalışmalarının yöntemsel olarak belirli kalite standartları çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesi, uygulamaların yinelenebilirliği ve sonuçların güvenirliği hakkında bilgi sağlamaktadır. Bu araştırmada, a) son 20 yılda, ortaokul düzeyinde bulunan öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilere yönelik uygulanan matematik problemi çözme müdahalelerinin derlenmesi, b) bu araştırmaların özelliklerinin betimsel olarak listelenmesi ve c) bu araştırmaların kalite göstergeleri açısından incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Yöntem: Elektronik veri tabanları, dergi indeksleri ve araştırma referansları temel alınarak kapsamlı bir tarama gerçekleştirilmiştir. Katılımcı makalelerin bu araştırmaya dahil edilmesine ve dışlanmasına ilişkin bazı temel seçim ölçütleri doğrultusunda toplam 9 makale; betimsel analiz ve kalite göstergeleri bağlamında incelenmiştir. Araştırmaların; betimsel analizi yapılarak özellikleri ortaya konulmuş, tek denekli deneysel desenlerin kullanıldığı araştırmalar için belirlenen kalite göstergeleri doğrultusunda incelenerek kalite düzeyleri belirlenmiştir. Bulgular: Bu araştırmada incelenen çalışmaların görsel grafiklerinin ve yazılı bulgularının incelenmesi sonucunda, çeşitli problem çözme öğretim müdahalelerinin (doğrudan öğretim, somut-yarı somut-soyut stratejisi, şema temelli yaklaşım, öz düzenleme stratejisi ve ipucu kartları, STAR stratejisi, açık anlatım, LAP stratejisi, görsel stratejiler, Solve It! ve SOLVE stratejisi) problem çözme becerilerinin kazanımında etkili olduğu belirlenmiştir. Çalışmalar kalite göstergeleri açısından genel olarak değerlendirildiğinde, temel kalite göstergelerinin başlama düzeyi, deneysel kontrol/iç geçerlik ve dış geçerlik bileşenlerinde tüm çalışmalar belirlenen ölçütleri karşılamaktadır. Diğer bileşenler için %44 ile %78 arasında değişen orandaki çalışmanın, belirlenen ölçütleri karşıladığı görülmüştür. Sadece bir çalışmanın kalite göstergelerinin tümünü karşıladığı görülmüştür. Tartışma: Araştırma bulguları, ilgili alanyazın ve teorik görüşler çerçevesinde tartışılmıştır. Öğretmenlere, uygulamaya ve alanda çalışan araştırmacılara ileride yapılacak araştırmalara yönelik önerilerde bulunulmuştur. Bu doğrultuda, öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrenciler ile çalışan uzmanların, problem çözme aşamaları, şematik düzenleyiciler, bilişsel ve üstbilişsel stratejiler ile sesli düşünme teknikleri gibi öğrencilerin başarılı bir şekilde problem çözümünü kolaylaştıracak stratejileri içeren müdahale programları oluşturması gerektiği belirtilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özkubat, U., Karabulut, A., Sert, C. (2022). Math Problem Solving Interventions for Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities: A Comprehensive Literature Review. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 1, 191–218. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.774650

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (101)

  1. Aydın, O., & Tekin-İftar, E. (2019). Otizm spektrum bozukluğu olan bireylere matematik becerilerinin öğretimi: Tek-denekli araştırmalarda betimsel ve meta analiz. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, Erken Görünüm. 1-44. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.521232
  2. Aydın, O., İftar, E. T., & Rakap, S. (2019). Bilimsel-Dayanaklı Uygulamaları Belirlemede “Tek-Denekli Deneysel Araştırmaların Niteliksel Göstergeleri” Yönergesi’nin Matematik Becerileri Öğretimi Örneğinde Ele Alınışı. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 20(3), 597-628. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.421952
  3. Baki, K. (2014). Şemaya dayalı öğretim stratejisinin zihinsel yetersizliği olan öğrencilerin matematikte sözel problem çözme becerilerine etkililiği [The effects of schema-based strategy instruction on the mathematical word problem solving skills of stu¬dents with intellectual disabilty] (Yüksek lisans tezi). Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezinden edinilmiştir. (Tez Numarası: 375309)
  4. Bottge, B. A., & Cho, S. J. (2013). Effects of enhanced anchored instruction on skills aligned to common core math standards. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19, 73-83. https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2013-V19-I2-4796
  5. Bottge, B. A., Grant, T. S., Stephens, A. C., & Rueda, E. (2010). Advancing the math skills of middle school students in technology education classrooms. NASSP Bulletin, 94, 81-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636510379902
  6. Bottge, B. A., Heinrichs, M., Chan, S., & Serlin, R. C. (2001). Anchoring adolescents’ understanding of math concepts in rich problem solving environments. Remedial and Special Education, 22(5), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200505
  7. Bottge, B. A., Heinrichs, M., Chan, S., Mehta, Z. D., & Watson, E. (2003). Effects of video-based and applied problems on the procedural math skills of average- and low-achieving adolescents. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(2), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340301800201
  8. Bottge, B. A., Heinrichs, M., Mehta, Z. D., & Hung, Y. H. (2002). Weighing the benefits of anchored math instruction for students with disabilities in general education classes. The Journal of Special Education, 35(4), 186-200. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246690203500401
  9. Bottge, B. A., Ma, X., Gassaway, L., Toland, M. D., Butler, M., & Cho, S. J. (2014). Effects of blended instructional models on math performance. Exceptional Children, 80, 423- 437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527240
  10. Bottge, B. A., Rueda E., Laroque, P. T., Serlin, R. C., & Kwon, J. (2007). Integrating reform-oriented math instruction in special education settings. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 96-109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00234.x
  11. Bottge, B. A., Rueda, E., Grant, T. S., Stephens, A. C., & Laroque, P. T. (2010). Anchoring problem-solving and computation instruction in context-rich learning environments. Exceptional Children, 76, 417-437. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600403
  12. Bottge, B. A., Rueda, E., LaRoque, P. T., Serlin, R. C., & Kwon, J. (2007). Integrating reform‐oriented math instruction in special education settings. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 96-109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00234.x
  13. Bottge, B. A., Rueda, E., Serlin, R. C., Hung, Y. H., & Kwon, J. M. (2007). Shrinking achievement differences with anchored math problems challenges and possibilities. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669070410010301
  14. Bottge, B., Rueda, E., & Skivington, M. (2006). Situating math instruction in rich problem-solving contexts: Effects on adolescents with challenging behaviors. Behavioral Disorders, 31(4), 394-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874290603100401
  15. Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., & Hammill, D. D. (2000). Characteristic behaviors of students with LD who have teacher-identified math weaknesses. Journal of learning disabilities, 33(2), 168-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300205
  16. Busk, P. L., & Serlin, R. C. (1992). Meta-analysis for single-case research. T. Kratochwill & J. Levin (Ed.), Single case research design and analysis (pp. 187-212). London: Routledge.
  17. Butler, F. M., Miller, S. P., Crehan, K., Babbitt, B., & Pierce, T. (2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00066
  18. Calhoon, M. B., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). The effects of peer-assisted learning strategies and curriculum-based measurement on the mathematics performance of secondary students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 24(4), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240040601
  19. Carpenter, T. P., Ansell, E., Franke, M. L., Fennema, E., & Weisbeck, L. (1993). Models of problem solving: A study of kindergarten children's problem-solving processes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 428- https://doi.org/441.10.2307/749152
  20. Cass, M., Cates, D., Smith, M., & Jackson, C. (2003). Effects of manipulative instruction on solving area and perimeter problems by students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00067
  21. Cawley, J. F., & Miller, J. H. (1986). Selected views on metacognition, arithmetic problem solving, and learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Focus. 2(1), 36–48.
  22. Cook, B. G., Collins, L. W., Cook, S. C., & Cook, L. (2019). Evidencebased reviews: How evidencebased practices are systematically identified. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12213
  23. Çetin, M. E., Evgin, Ç. A. Y., & Bozak, B. Çoklu yetersizliği olan bireylerle yapılmış tek denekli araştırmaların incelenmesi: Sistematik derleme. [Single-subject researchs on individuals with multiple disabilities: Systematic review]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 21 (2), 357-381. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.521556
  24. Foegen, A. (2008). Algebra progress monitoring and interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(2), 65-78. https://doi.org/10.2307/20528818
  25. Fuchs, Fuchs, Maths & Lipsey. (2000). Reading differences between low-achieving students with and without learning disabilities: a meta-analysis. Gersten, R., Schiller, E. P., & Vaughn, S. R. (Ed.) Contemporary Special Education Research. (pp. 81-105). Routledge.
  26. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Prentice, K. (2004). Responsiveness to mathematical problem-solving instruction: Comparing students at risk of mathematics disability with and without risk of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(4), 293-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370040201
  27. Freeman‐Green, S. M., O'Brien, C., Wood, C. L., & Hitt, S. B. (2015). Effects of the SOLVE strategy on the mathematical problem solving skills of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30(2), 76-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12054
  28. Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370010201
  29. Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics instrucoction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202-1242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309334431
  30. Goldman, S. R. (1989). Strategy instruction in mathematics. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12(1), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510251
  31. Guerin, G., & Male, M. C. Learning difficulties and teaching strategies. G. Guerin& M. C. Male, (Ed.). (2006). Addressing learning disabilities and difficulties: How to reach and teach every student (pp. 13-66). California: Corwin
  32. Hamilton, C., & Shinn, M. R. (2003). Characteristics of word callers: An investigation of the accuracy of teachers' judgments of reading comprehension and oral reading skills. School Psychology Review, 32(2), 228-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2003.12086195
  33. House, A. W., House, B. G., & Campbell, M. B. (1981). Measures of interobserver agreement: Calculation formula and distribution effect. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 3, 37-57.
  34. Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203
  35. Hughes, C. A., & Maccini, P. (1997). Computer-assisted mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A research review. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(3), 155-66.
  36. Hunt, J. H., & Vasquez III, E. (2014). Effects of ratio strategies intervention on knowledge of ratio equivalence for students with learning disability. The Journal of Special Education, 48(3), 180-190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466912474102
  37. Hutchinson, N. L. (1993). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on algebra problem solving of adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16(1), 34-63. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511158
  38. Iseman, J. S. & Naglieri, J. A. (2011). A cognitive strategy instruction to improve math calculation for children with ADHD and LD: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 184-195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410391190
  39. Ives, B. (2007). Graphic organizers applied to secondary algebra instruction for students with learning disorders. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 110-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00235.x
  40. Jitendra, A., DiPipi, C. M., & Perron-Jones, N. (2002). An exploratory study of schema-basedword-problem solving instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities: An emphasis on conceptual and procedural understanding. The Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669020360010301
  41. Jitendra, A. K., & Hoff, K. (1996). The effects of schema-based instruction on the mathematical word-problem-solving performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 422-431. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949602900410
  42. Jitendra, A. K., Petersen-Brown, S., Lein, A. E., Zaslofsky, A. F., Kunkel, A. K., Jung, P. G., & Egan, A. M. (2013). Teaching mathematical word problem solving: The quality of evidence for strategy instruction priming the problem structure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(1), 51-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413487408
  43. Jitendra, A., Burgess, C., & Gajria, M. (2011). Cognitive strategy instruction for improving expository text comprehension of students with learning disabilities: The quality of evidence. Exceptional Children, 77, 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700201
  44. Jonassen, D. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 362-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2003.10782391
  45. Joseph, L. M., & Hunter, A. D. (2001). Differential application of a cue card strategy for solving fraction problems: Exploring instructional utility of the cognitive assessment team. Child Study Journal, 31(2), 123–136. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/42899825
  46. Karabulut, A., & Özmen, E. R. (2018). Effect of “Understand and Solve!” strategy instruction on mathematical problem solving of students with mild intellectual disabilities. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 11(2), 77-90. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2018245314
  47. Karabulut, A., Yıkmış, A., Özak, H., & Karabulut, H. (2015). Şemaya dayalı problem çözme stratejisinin zihinsel yetersizliği olan öğrencilerin problem çözme performanslarına etkisi. [The effect of schema based problem solving strategy on problem solving performance of students with intellectual disabilities] Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 15(Özel Sayı), 243-258. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2015.15.0-5000128657
  48. Karakoç, T. (2002). Görme engelli öğrencilere matematikte sözlü problem çözümünün öğretiminde doğrudan öğretim yaklaşımına göre hazırlanan öğretim programının akranlar aracılığıyla sunulmasının etkililiği [The effectiveness of curriculum prepared direct teaching approach to teaching visually impaired students in the solution of word problem in mathematics through peers] (Yüksek lisans tezi). Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezinden edinilmiştir. (Tez Numarası: 113248)
  49. Karasu, N. (2011). Otizmli bireylerin eğitiminde video ile model olma uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesi: Bir alanyazın derlemesi ve meta-analiz örneği. [Examining video-modeling in teaching of ındividuals with autism: A review and meta-analysis sample] Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 12(02), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1501/Ozlegt_0000000158
  50. Keeler, M. L., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). Does strategy knowledge influence working memory in children with mathematical disabilities?. Journal of learning disabilities, 34(5), 418-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400504
  51. Kingsdorf, S., & Krawec, J. (2014). Error analysis of mathematical word problem solving across students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(2), 66-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12029
  52. Kot, M., & Yıkmış, A. (2018). The effects of schema-based ın¬struction on the mathematical problem solving skills of children with mental retardation. Journal of Kalem Education and Human Sciences, 8(2), 335-358. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949602900410
  53. Kratochwill, T. R., & Stoiber, K. C. (2002). Evidence-based interventions in school psychology: Conceptual foundations of the procedural and coding manual of division 16 and the society for the study of school psychology task force. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(4), 341–389. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.17.4.341.20872
  54. Krawec, J., Huang, J., Montague, M., Kressler, B., & de Alba, A. M. (2013). The effects of cognitive strategy instruction on knowledge of math problem-solving processes of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712463368
  55. Lee, J., Bryant, D. P., Ok, M. W., & Shin, M. (2020). A Systematic Review of Interventions for Algebraic Concepts and Skills of Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35(2), 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12217
  56. Lucangeli, D., & Cabrele, S. (2006). Mathematical difficulties and ADHD. Exceptionality, 14(1), 53-62. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex1401_5
  57. Maccini, P., & Hughes, C. A. (1997). Mathematics interventions for adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(3), 168-76.
  58. Maccini, P., Mulcahy, C. A., & Wilson, M. G. (2007). A follow up of mathematics interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 58-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00231.x
  59. Maccini, P., & Ruhl, K. L. (2000). Effects of graduated instructional sequence on the algebraic subtraction of integers by secondary students with disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 23(4), 465–489. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/42899634
  60. Manalo, E., Bunnell, J. K., & Stillman, J. A. (2000). The use of process mnemonics in teaching students with mathematics learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511142
  61. Marita, S., & Hord, C. (2017). Review of mathematics interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(1), 29-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948716657495
  62. McGilly, K., & Siegler, R. S. (1989). How children choose among serial recall strategies. Child Development, 172-182, 172-182. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131083
  63. Miller, S. P., & Hudson, P. J. (2007). Using evidence‐based practices to build mathematics competence related to conceptual, procedural, and declarative knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 47-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00230.x
  64. Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1997). Educational aspects of mathematics disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(1), 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949703000104
  65. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264-269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  66. Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of learning disabilities, 25(4), 230-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949202500404
  67. Montague, M. (1997). Student perception, mathematical problem solving, and learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 18(1), 46-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259701800108
  68. Montague, M. (2007). Self‐regulation and mathematics instruction. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 75-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00232.x
  69. Montague, M. (2008). Self-regulation strategies to improve mathematical problem solving for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(1), 37-44. https://doi.org/10.2307/30035524
  70. Montague, M., Applegate, B., & Marquard, K. (1993). Cognitive strategy instruction and mathematical problem-solving performance of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 8(4), 223–232.
  71. Montague, M., Enders, C., & Dietz, S. (2011). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on math problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 34, 262–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711421762
  72. Montague, M., Krawec, J., Enders, C., & Dietz, S. (2014). The effects of cognitive strategy instruction on math problem solving of middle-school students of varying ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 469–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035176
  73. Morin, L. L., Watson, S. M., Hester, P., & Raver, S. (2017). The use of a bar model drawing to teach word problem solving to students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40, 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717690116
  74. Myers, J. A., Brownell, M. T., & Gagnon, J. C. (2015). Learning Disabilities (LD) in Secondary School: A Review of the Literature. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 13(2), 207-235.
  75. Naglieri, J. A., & Johnson, D. (2000). Effectiveness of a cognitive strategy intervention in improving arithmetic computation based on the PASS theory. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(6), 591–597. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300607
  76. Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional children, 71(2), 137-148. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100201
  77. Olkun, S., & Toluk, Z. (2003). İlköğretimde etkinlik temelli matematik öğretimi [Activity based mathematics teaching in primary education]. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  78. Özkubat, U. (2019). Öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrenciler ile düşük ve ortalama başarılı olan öğrencilerin matematik problemi çözerken kullandıkları bilişsel stratejiler ile üstbilişsel işlevler arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi [An examination of the relationships between cognitive strategies and metacognitive functions used during mathematical problem solving by the students with learning disabilities, low achieving, and average achieving] (Doktora tezi). (Tez Numarası: 602277)
  79. Özkubat, U., & Özmen, E. R. (2018). Öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin matematik problemi çözme süreçlerinin incelenmesi: Sesli düşünme protokolü uygulaması. [Analysis of mathematical problem solving process of students with learning disability: Implementation of think aloud protocol]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 19(1), 155-180. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.299494.
  80. Özkubat, U., Karabulut, A., & Özmen, E. R. (2020). Mathematical problem-solving processes of students with special needs: A cognitive strategy instruction model 'Solve It!'. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 12(5), 405-416. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2020562131
  81. Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
  82. Rivera, D. P. (1997). Mathematics education and students with learning disabilities: Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(1), 2-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949703000101
  83. Rozenzweig, C., Krawec, J., & Montague, M. (2011). Metacognitive strategy use of eighth-grade students with and without learning disabilities during mathematical problem solving: a think-aloud analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(6) 508-520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410378445
  84. Scarlato, M. C., & Burr,W. A. (2002). Teaching fractions to middle school students. Journal of Direct Instruction, 2(1), 23–38.
  85. Scheuermann, A. M., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2009). The effects of the explicit inquiry routine on the performance of students with learning disabilities on one-variable equations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(2), 103-120. https://doi.org/10.2307/27740360
  86. Schurter, W. A. (2002). Comprehension monitoring: An aid to mathematical problem solving. Journal of Developmental Education, 26(2), 22-33.
  87. Sharp, E., & Dennis, M. S. (2017). Model drawing strategy for fraction word problem solving of fourth-grade students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516678823
  88. Simmerman, S., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). Treatment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: How important are internal and external validity? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400303
  89. Stanford, G., & Oakland, T. (2000). Cognitive deficits underlying learning disabilities: Research perspectives from the United States. School Psychology International, 21(3), 306-321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034300213007
  90. Strickland, T.K., & Maccini, P. (2013). The effects of the concrete-representationalabstract-integration strategy on the ability of students with learning disabilities to multiply linear expressions within area problems. Remedial and Special Education, 34(3), 142-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512441712
  91. Sweeney, C. M. (2010). The metacognitive functioning of middle school students with and without learning disabilities during mathematical problem solving. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertations, University of Miami, Florida.
  92. Tankersley, M., Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2008). A preliminary examination to identify the presence of quality indicators in single-subject research. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(4), 523–548. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/42899994
  93. Tertemiz, N. I. (2017). İlkokul öğrencilerinin dört işlem becerisine dayalı kurdukları problemlerin incelenmesi. [Examining the problems that primary school students set up based on four processing skills]. Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 15(1), 1-25.
  94. Test, D. W., & Ellis, M. F. (2005). The effects of LAP fractions on addition and subtraction of fractions with students with mild disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 28(1), 11– 24.
  95. Tufan, S., & Aykut, Ç. (2018). Şemaya dayalı strateji ve kendini izleme stratejisi öğretiminin hafif düzeyde zihinsel engelli öğrencilerin sözel matematik problemi çözme performanslarına etkisi. [The effect of schema based strategy and self- monitoring on problem solving performance of students with mild ıntellectual disability]. İlkogretim Online, 17(2), s.613-641. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2018.419005
  96. Tuncer, A. T. (2009). Şemaya dayalı sözlü matematik problemi çözme stratejisinin görme yetersizliği olan öğrencilerin sözlü problem çözme performanslarına etkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 34(153), 183-197.
  97. Van Garderen, D. (2006). Spatial visualization, visual imagery, and mathematical problem solving of students with varying abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 496-506. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390060201
  98. Van Garderen, D. (2007). Teaching students with LD to use diagrams to solve mathematical word problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(6), 540-553. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400060501
  99. Xin, Y. P. (2008). The effect of schema-based instruction in solving mathematics word problems: An emphasis on prealgebraic conceptualization of multiplicative relations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 526–551.
  100. Cook, B. G., Collins, L. W., Cook, S. C., & Cook, L. (2019). Evidencebased reviews: How evidencebased practices are systematically identified. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12213
  101. Çetin, M. E., Evgin, Ç. A. Y., & Bozak, B. Çoklu yetersizliği olan bireylerle yapılmış tek denekli araştırmaların incelenmesi: Sistematik derleme. [Single-subject researchs on individuals with multiple disabilities: Systematic review]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 21 (2), 357-381. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.521556