Teaching Subtraction With Regrouping to Students Experiencing Difficulty in Mathematics

Margaret M. Flores

ABSTRACT: The author investigated the effects of the concreterepresentational-abstract (CRA) instructional sequence on the computation performance of students with specific learning disabilities and students identified as at risk for failure in mathematics. Researchers have showed the CRA sequence to be effective for teaching basic mathematics facts, fractions, algebra, and place value. However, they have not studied its effects when it is used to teach subtraction with regrouping. Therefore, the author examined the effects of CRA instruction on elementary school students fluency in computing subtraction problems with regrouping and maintaining these skills. The author used a multipleprobe-across-groups design and demonstrated a functional relation between CRA instruction and subtraction with regrouping across all students. The author discusses the results and implications. KEYWORDS: at risk for failure, disabilities, intervention, mathematics REFORM EFFORTS IN MATHEMATICS focus on higher order thinking and problem solving, but proficiency in basic computation is a necessary preskill for complex tasks in mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000; National Research Council, 2001; Woodward, 2004). Students who lack these prerequisite skills are likely to struggle to progress in their understanding and achievement of mathematics (Kirby & Williams, 1991; Montague, 1997). Researchers have studied the state of computation performance during the past several decades (Calhoon, Wall, Flores, & Houchins, 2007; Cawley, Fitzmaurice, Shaw, Khan, & Bates, 1979; Cawley & Miller, 1989; Fleischner, Garnett, & Shepherd, 1982; Warner, Schumaker, Alley, & Deshler, 1980) and found that students with early difficulties in learning mathematics continue to have difficulties. Researchers have demonstrated that the use of the concreterepresentational-abstract (CRA) sequence is effective for teaching mathematics to students who struggle with learning mathematics. This instructional sequence involves three phases. First, during the concrete phase, instruction involves using manipulatives to demonstrate the meaning of a particular concept. The teacher models the process with manipu145

latives and follows it with guided and independent practice. The teacher uses the same model, guide, and practice procedures during the second phase (representational), which involves illustration of the mathematical process by using pictures to represent numbers. In a transition from representation to abstraction, students learn to use a mnemonic strategy to aid the computation and problem-solving process. Last, the abstract phase involves memorization and continues until the students learn the operation or procedure automatically. CRA Mathematics Fact Instruction Mercer and Miller (1992) field-tested programs using CRA procedures to teach basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division to students with learning, behavioral, and intellectual disabilities. The students also learned a mnemonic strategy (DRAW) that comprised the following steps: (a) discover the sign, (b) read the problem, (c) answer or draw and check, and (d) write the answer. Students performed significantly better with the graduated instructional sequence than with the traditional curriculum. The students generalized basic computation skills to word problems and generated their own word problems as a result of instruction. Miller and Mercer (1993) replicated Mercer and Millers findings with elementary school students with learning disabilities. Harris, Miller, and Mercer (1995) taught initial multiplication skills to second-grade students in inclusive settings, whereas previous studies involved remediation in special education settings. As a result of participation in the program, the students succeeded in acquiring multiplication
Address correspondence to Margaret M. Flores, Auburn University, Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation, Counseling/School Psychology, College of Education, 2084 Haley Center, Auburn, AL 36849, USA; mflores@auburn.edu (e-mail). Copyright 2009 Heldref Publications

146

Preventing School Failure

Vol. 53, No. 3

skills that were appropriate for their grade level. Morin and Miller (1998) extended the research to middle school students with intellectual disabilities. CRA Fraction Instruction and Place Value Instruction Butler, Miller, Crehan, Babbitt, and Pierce (2003) compared two instructional methods for teaching equivalent fractions, concepts, and procedures: CRA instructional sequence and representationalabstract sequence, omitting the use of manipulatives. They found that both instructional sequences resulted in improved student performance. However,the students in the CRA group demonstrated higher mean performances on posttest achievement measures. Peterson, Mercer, and OShea (1988) compared the use of the CRA sequence with instruction at the abstract level, regarding teaching identification of place value. In their study, participants were 24 elementary and middle school students with learning disabilities. Peterson et al. found that the CRA instructional group performed better than the abstract instructional group did on measures of skill acquisition and maintenance. Purpose Although place-value knowledge is critical in advanced computation procedures, such as addition and subtraction with regrouping, I did not find any research in the literature regarding the use of CRA to teach this concept and related procedures. Therefore, in the present study, I aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the CRA sequence in teaching subtraction with regrouping to elementary school students. The research questions were (a) What are the effects of CRA instruction on students fluency in computing subtraction problems with regrouping? and (b) What are the effects of CRA instruction on students maintenance of fluency in computing subtraction problems with regrouping? Method I conducted the present study in an elementary school in a rural district outside of a major city in the U.S. southwest.
TABLE 1. Participant Information Name Beto Ed Art May Juan Mari Age 9 10 9 8 8 9 Race Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic White Hispanic Hispanic Setting Inclusive Inclusive Not applicable Inclusive Not applicable Inclusive

The majority of the students who were enrolled at this elementary school received free or reduced lunch. The ethnic breakdown of the students was as follows: fewer than 1% were African American, fewer than 1% were Asian, 80% were Hispanic, and 19% were White. I provided instruction 3 days per week for 30 min each day. The students received instruction during a regularly scheduled time in which teachers provided math practice and remediation in the general education classroom. I provided instruction outside of the general education classroom in a conference room. Participants Table 1 summarizes student characteristics. The criteria for participation were current failure in mathematics and lack of skill in subtraction with regrouping, which was defined as fewer than 10 digits written correctly on a curriculum-based measure. Participants were 6 third-grade students who were all failing mathematics in terms of grades and performance on districtwide mandated benchmark assessments. In addition, none of the students wrote more than seven correct digits on a curriculum-based measure. Of the 6 participants, 4 met the state criteria for a specific learning disability (SLD). On the basis of a comprehensive evalutation, a multidisciplinary team identified each student who had an SLD. Art and Juan were 9- and 8-year-old Hispanic boys, respectively, who were not identified as having an SLD. By contrast, Beto and Ed were 9- and 10-year-old Hispanic boys, respectively, who were identified as having an SLD. Mari was a 9-yearold Hispanic girl who was identified as having an SLD. Last, May was an 8-year-old White girl who was identified as having an SLD. Materials The probes used to measure student progress comprised sheets of paper with 30 subtraction problems (two-digit number minus another two-digit number) that required regrouping in the tens place. The CRA intervention materials included a contract in which the teacher and students agreed

Exceptionality SLDa SLD Not identified SLD Not identified SLD

Cognitive ability 103 96 96 133 130 120

Mathematics achievement 86 80 82 81 100 87

Note. All participants were in Grade 3. Cognitive ability was measured using the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence; mathematics achievement was measured using KeyMathR. a SLD = specific learning disability.

Spring 2009

Flores

147

to work rigorously using strategies to master subtraction with regrouping. Each student received a progress chart in which the number of correct digits was recorded throughout the intervention. The materials for Lessons 13 were Base-10 blocks made out of foam, and I created 8.5 11in. learning sheets with target subtraction problems (twodigit number minus another two-digit number) requiring regrouping in the tens place, written vertically. I divided the learning sheets into three sections: model (three problems), guided practice (three problems), and independent practice (six problems). For the materials in the representational phase (Lessons 46), I created learning sheets similar to those for the previous stage. For Lesson 7, materials comprised a sheet printed with the DRAW mnemonic device. I divided the materials for Lessons 810, which comprised learning sheets into three sections: model (one problem), guided practice (three problems), and independent practice (six problems). Remaining lessons comprised fluency activities and materials comprised sheets with 30 vertically written subtraction problems requiring regrouping in the tens place. Instructional Procedures I established a baseline for all students regarding subtraction with regrouping in the tens place. I defined a stable baseline as three consecutive data points that varied no more than 5% from the average rate of responding across all data points (Poling, Methot, & LeSage, 1995). When baseline was stable, I began CRA instruction with the first student while the remaining students continued in baseline. The criterion for phase change was 20 digits correct on a 2min probe across three consecutive probes. I chose a criterion of 20 digits because it is the norm for students finishing

second grade (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005) and the current studys participants were beginning the school year as third-grade students. When the first student reached the criterion, he or she moved into the 4-week maintenance condition during which I provided no instruction or practice opportunities. After 4 weeks, I measured fluency skills using a 2-min probe. When the first student began 4-week maintenance, the second group (Beto, Ed) began CRA instruction. I used these procedures for the remaining group (Mari, Juan, May). I implemented CRA instruction according to Miller and Mercers (1992) structure. First, the teacher described CRA and its rationale in terms of pretest performance and obtained a commitment from the student in the form of a contract. During Lessons 13 (concrete level), instruction involved manipulative objects. Figure 1 provides a graphic representation of the steps. After three lessons with 80% accuracy or better, instruction progressed to Lessons 46 (representational level). Figure 2 provides a graphic representation of the steps. Instead of using Base-10 blocks, I used drawings. I drew the ones using small vertical tallies written on a horizontal line and drew the tens using long vertical lines. I represented regrouping by circling one of the long vertical lines and adding 10 small tallies to the horizontal line. I represented subtraction by circling the appropriate number of lines or tallies on the basis of the subtrahend. After at least three lessons and 80% accuracy, I introduced the DRAW strategy in Lesson 7. The students moved to the next phase of instruction when they solved problems with at least 80% accuracy and could recite the DRAW steps accurately. The next phase of instruction was Lessons 810 (abstract level) in which I encouraged the students to answer problems from memory rather than by using drawings, but they could use the DRAW strategy. After Lesson 10, instruction involved

FIGURE 1. Steps for subtraction with regrouping, using Base-10 blocks.

148

Preventing School Failure

Vol. 53, No. 3

FIGURE 2. Steps for subtraction with regrouping, using drawings.

timed fluency activities. I administered maintenance measures 4 weeks after instruction had ended. Treatment Integrity and Interobserver Agreement Treatment integrity was conducted during 30% of the lessons (Poling et al., 1995). I recorded these instructional lessons using digital video. A treatment checklist for the intervention was used to ensure that procedures were implemented correctly. I trained a graduate assistant in using the treatment integrity checklists through demonstration and practice. When the graduate assistant completed a checklist with 100% accuracy, treatment integrity checks began. I calculated treatment integrity at 100% for the study. I conducted interrater reliability for 100% of the subtraction probes administered. I trained a graduate assistant through demonstration and practice in the scoring procedures, and reliability checks began after the graduate assistant had scored a probe with 100% accuracy. I collected data before each instructional lesson and scored fluency probes. The trained graduate assistant scored the same multiplication probes. To calculate interrater reliability, I divided the total number of agreements between the graduate assistant and me by the total number of observations; then, I multiplied this number by 100 (Poling et al., 1995). Social Validity I assessed social validity through interviews before and after the study. The students and teachers answered questions regarding the need for and, efficacy of the interventions, and recommendations for other students or teachers. The students who participated received instruction in three different classrooms, and in each of the classrooms, the teachers participated in the interviews. Each of the teachers reported that there was a need for the subtraction-

with-regrouping intervention. They also reported that the intervention was effective, as measured by their observations of students computation in the general education classroom. In addition, the teachers reported that the students regrouping performance on district-mandated mathematics benchmark testing increased and that they would recommend the strategy to other teachers. Each of the students stated that subtraction with regrouping was difficult, and they expressed interest in participating in the intervention. The students made a commitment to participate and put effort into learning a new way to complete subtraction problems. The students reported that they liked the strategy, it made subtraction easier, and they would recommend it to other students. Research Design The study used a multiple probe (Tawney & Gast, 1984) design replicated across groups to evaluate the efficacy of CRA instruction for teaching subtraction with regrouping. The multiple probe across groups design was used to show a functional relation between the CRA intervention and a behavior that could not be reversed or unlearned. The data were interpreted by visual inspection, and I noted the following data characteristics: overlap between each baseline and treatment, slope of each treatment data path, and number of data points from the beginning of each treatment to criterion. Results I analyzed the results by visually inspecting the data. Figure 3 summarizes the students performances. Baseline Art, Beto, and Eds baseline performances were stable, each writing zero correct digits on all probes. Maris baseline performance was more variable, with probes ranging

Spring 2009

Flores

149

25 20 15 10 5 0

Baseline

CRA instruction

Maintenance

Art

25 20 15 10 5 0

Baseline

CRA instruction

Maintenance

Beto

Number of Correct Digits

25 20 15 10 5 0

Baseline

CRA instruction

Maintenance

Ed

25 20 15 10 5 0

Baseline

CRA instruction

Maintenance

Mari

25 20 15 10 5 0

Baseline

CRA instruction

Maintenance

Juan

25 20 15 10 5 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13

Baseline

CRA instruction

Maintenance

May 15 17 19 21 23 25 Probes 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43

FIGURE 3. Number of correct digits written across instructional groups. CRA = concrete-representational-abstract.

from four to six correct digits; however, the last three baseline probes were consistent with four correct digits. Juans baseline probes ranged from zero to two correct digits, and

the last six probes were consistent with two correct digits each. Mays baseline probes were consistent with five correct digits on eight of nine probes.

150

Preventing School Failure

Vol. 53, No. 3

CRA Performance After Implementation Art. Art reached criterion after 15 probes ranging from 2 to 21 correct digits. There was an immediate change in the level of performance between baseline and CRA and no overlapping data points between baseline and CRA phases. Arts average performance during the CRA phase was approximately 10 correct digits. The CRA phase data points show an upward path, indicating steady improvement. Beto. Beto reached criterion after 11 probes ranging from 6 to 20 correct digits. There was an immediate change in the level of performance between baseline and CRA and no overlapping data points between baseline and CRA phases. Betos average performance during the CRA phase was approximately 13 correct digits. The CRA phase data points show an upward path, indicating steady improvement. Ed. Ed reached criterion after 11 probes ranging from 3 to 24 correct digits. There was an immediate change in the level of performance between baseline and CRA, and there were no overlapping data points between baseline and CRA phases. Eds average performance during the CRA phase was approximately 14 correct digits. The CRA phase data points show an upward path, indicating steady improvement. Mari. Mari reached criterion after 10 probes ranging from 10 to 21 correct digits. There was an immediate change in the level of performance between baseline and CRA and no overlapping data points between baseline and CRA phases. Maris average performance during the CRA phase was approximately 17 correct digits. The CRA phase data points show an upward path, indicating steady improvement. Juan. Juan reached criterion after 10 probes ranging from 7 to 20 correct digits. There was an immediate change in the level of performance between baseline and CRA, and there were no overlapping data points between baseline and CRA phases. Juans average performance during the CRA phase was approximately 13 correct digits. The CRA phase data points show some variability with every other data point decreasing; however, the degree of decrease lessened with every successive instance. May. May reached criterion after 11 probes ranging from 6 to 21 correct digits. There was an immediate change in the level of performance between baseline and CRA, and there were no overlapping data points between baseline and CRA phases. Mays average performance during the CRA phase was approximately 14 correct digits. The CRA phase data points show some variability in the first four points, but the remaining points show an upward path. Maintenance Of participants, 5 of 6 maintained performance at or above the criterion level after 4 weeks of no instruction or

practice opportunities. Of maintenance performance, Arts was 22 correct digits, Betos was 14 correct digits (a 6-digit decrease in performance), Eds was 23 correct digits, Maris was 20 correct digits, Juans was 22 correct digits, and Mays was 20 correct digits. Interrater Reliability I calculated interrater reliability for the probe scoring by dividing the number of agreements by the total number of agreements and disagreements. I checked all of the students probes for interrater reliability, with 122 total checked probes. There were 120 agreements and 2 disagreements, with an interrater reliability of 98%. The interrater reliability was 100% for probes completed by Art (19 of 19), Ed (20 of 20), Mari (21 of 21), and May (21 of 21). Interrater reliability was 95% for both Arts (19 of 20) and Betos (20 of 21) probes. Discussion In the present study, I aimed to investigate the effectiveness of CRA instruction for teaching subtraction with regrouping to students with learning disabilities and students who were identified as at risk for failure. A functional relation was demonstrated between CRA and subtraction skills. All 5 students met the criterion of writing 20 digits on three consecutive 2-min curriculum-based measures. There were no overlapping data points, and there was an immediate change in student performance between baseline and treatment conditions across all students. Of students, 4 of 5 maintained their performance 4 weeks after the end of instruction. The students participated in each level of instruction without modification and without more than three lessons at any of the instructional levels. The students moved from the concrete to representational levels with ease and were able to represent the problems through the use of self-drawn pictures without extra practice or teacher attention. The students appeared engaged in each instructional session and participated in the form and pace that Miller and Mercer (1992) described. Consistent with previous research (Butler et al., 2003; Harris et al., 1995; Maccini & Ruhl, 2000; Mercer & Miller, 1992; Miller & Mercer, 1993; Morin & Miller, 1998; Peterson et al., 1988; Witzel, 2005; Witzel, Mercer, & Miller, 2003), the effects of the CRA instructional sequence resulted in academic gains. The students pretests indicated a lack of conceptual understanding of place value that interfered with their acquisition of regrouping procedural knowledge. When instruction began, all of the students readily identified the tens and ones places (i.e., 32 comprised 2 ones and 3 tens). Although the students appeared to have memorized the labeling of place value, they did not understand the concept and its role in computation. For example, when they were given a problem such as 32

Spring 2009

Flores

151

19, the students solved the problem by subtracting 2 from 9 (i.e., 32 19 = 27) rather than regrouping. Conceptual understanding of place value is critical to the advancement of computation skills beyond basic facts. It is needed for advancement to multiple-digit addition, subtraction, and multiplication with regrouping and to long division. Without it, the use of mathematical procedures for solving these types of problems may be more difficult to acquire because they may be perceived as a string of arbitrary rules. When working at the concrete level, the students in the present study stopped making the 32 19 = 27 error because they could not physically take away 9 from 2 blocks. Using the manipulative objects, the students perceived the regrouping procedure as a logical solution to their problem with 2 9 in the ones place. The students physically demonstrated their understanding of the regrouping procedures rather than memorizing steps. After students understanding of the procedures were firm (demonstrated across three lessons), it was necessary to fade their dependence on manipulative objects. To accomplish this, the students drew pictures to represent the problem; last, I asked the students to follow the procedures without drawing. The CRA instructional sequence provided the students with a scaffold from conceptual understanding to procedural knowledge in which the students became fluent. Limitations The research design presents a limitation to the present study because CRA was not compared with another subtraction intervention. Therefore, there may be other interventions which are as or more effective, and further research using other designs is needed. Another limitation is external validity, the degree to which I can generalize the results beyond the experimental conditions (Kazdin, 1982). A small group of students who varied somewhat in intellectual ability and levels of mathematics achievement demonstrated success with the program. However, more students with varied levels of functioning are needed to generalize the results to larger populations. A third limitation is the generalization of the results across settings. I conducted the present study in a small group setting outside of the general education classroom, and it is unclear whether the same effects occur if implemented in an inclusive general education setting. Another limitation is the generality of the behavior change agent (Kazdin, 1982). I, rather than the students classroom teachers, implemented instruction. Earlier in my career, I attended professional development to gain expertise in this type of instruction. As a special education teacher, I used CRA with students in my classroom. This previous experience may have increased the treatment integrity. However, my presence may have influenced the students performance by increasing their motivation to perform well for an outsider. Furthermore, the results may be less practical or applicable because the class-

room teachers did not implement the program. The teachers implementation in a typical classroom would strengthen the results. To bridge the gap between research and practice, appropriately trained teachers should implement research procedures in a typical classroom. Implications and Practical Applications The use of the CRA instructional sequence was successful in teaching students subtraction with regrouping. The materials were accessible items available in most classrooms, so this would be an inexpensive intervention. Although I conducted the present study outside the general education classroom, it could be incorporated into a general education setting through differentiated instruction and flexible grouping, strategies that are increasing across inclusive settings. For example, in an inclusive general education classroom, only some of the students may need instruction as explicit as CRA. Providing differentiated activities in the context of a learning center rotation provides the teacher with time to work with a small group of students. Learning centers may consist of enrichment activities, practice activities, or mathematics games that may further reinforce or extend previous learning for students who do not need CRA instruction. When planning to use CRA regrouping instruction, teachers may have concerns about using manipulative objects, drawings, student behaviors, or instructional management. The Appendix lists suggestions for implementation of CRA instruction addressing these issues. Future Research Researchers should conduct further research to investigate how long the treatment effects are maintained because I measured maintenance only at the 4-week mark. Also, they should investigate whether and how much practice is needed to maintain the treatment effects over time. In addition, further investigation of generalization is needed because, in the present study, I did not involve programmed instruction for generalization, a component of other instructional programs (Deshler, Schumaker, Harris, & Graham, 1999; Schmidt, Deshler, Schumaker, & Alley, 1989). In the present study, the measures did not extend to problem-solving and real-world application of skills as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000) standards suggested. Therefore, future researchers should involve instruction and measurement in these areas.
AUTHOR NOTE Margaret M. Flores is an assistant professor in the Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation, Counseling/School Psychology at Auburn University. Her research interest is effective instructional practices in mathematics and reading. REFERENCES Butler, F. M., Miller, S. P., Crehan, K., Babbitt, B., & Pierce, T. (2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics

152

Preventing School Failure

Vol. 53, No. 3 math disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8, 8996. Montague, M. (1997). Cognitive strategy training in mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 164177. Morin, V. A., & Miller, S. P. (1998). Teaching multiplication to middle school students with mental retardation. Education and Treatment of Children, 21, 2236. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Research Council. (2001). Looking at mathematics and learning. In J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.), Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics (pp. 116). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Peterson, S. K., Mercer, C. D., & OShea, L. (1988). Teaching learning-disabled students place value using the concrete to abstract sequence. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 5256. Poling, A., Methot, L. L., & LeSage, M. G. (1995). Fundamentals of behavior analytic research. New York: Plenum. Schmidt, J. L., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Alley, G. R. (1989). Effects of generalization instruction on the written language performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in the mainstream classroom. Journal of Reading and Writing and Learning Disabilities, 4, 291309. Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Warner, M. M., Schumaker, J. B., Alley, G. R., & Deshler, D. D. (1980). Learning disabled adolescents in public schools: Are they different from other low achievers? Exceptional Education Quarterly, 1(2), 2735. Witzel, B. (2005). Using CRA to teach algebra to students with mathematics difficulties in inclusive settings. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3(2), 4960. Witzel, B. S., Mercer, C. D., & Miller, M. D. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 121131. Woodward, J. (2004). Mathematics education in the United States: Past to present. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 1631.

disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 99111. Calhoon, M. B., Wall, R., Flores, M. M., & Houchins, D. E. (2007). Computational fluency performance profile of high school students with mathematics disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 304315. Cawley, J., Fitzmaurice, A. M., Shaw, R. A., Kahn, H., & Bates, H. (1979). Mathematics and learning disabled youth: The upper grade levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1(4), 3752. Cawley, J. F., & Miller, J. H. (1989). Cross-sectional comparisons of the mathematical performance of children with learning disabilities: Are we on the right track toward comprehensive programming? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 250259. Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J., Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1999). Teaching every adolescent every day: Learning in diverse high school classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Brookline. Fleischner, J. E., Garnett, K., & Shepherd, M. J. (1982). Proficiency in basic fact computation of learning disabled and nondisabled children. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 4, 4755. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement for progress monitoring in math. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. Harris, C. A., Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1995). Teaching initial multiplication skills to students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 180196. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press. Kirby, J. R., & Williams, N. H. (1991). Learning problems: A cognitive approach. Toronto, Canada: Kagan and Woo. Maccini, P., & Ruhl, K. L. (2000). Effects of graduated instructional sequence on the algebraic subtraction of integers by secondary students with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 465489. Mercer, C. D., & Miller, S. P. (1992). Teaching students with learning problems in math to acquire, understand, and apply basic math facts. Remedial and Special Education, 13, 1935. Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1992). Strategic math series: Place value. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises. Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1993). Using data to learn about concrete-semiconcrete-abstract instruction for students with

APPENDIX Suggestions for Implementing Concrete-Representational-Abstract Regrouping Instruction Divide Base-10 blocks for student use into sealed containers or sealable plastic bags. Give each student his or her own bag of blocks when it is time for use. Provide clear instructions regarding the appropriate use of the blocks to minimize disruptive and inappropriate behaviors associated with the manipulatives. Refer to the Base-10 blocks as ones and tens. In some contexts, teachers refer to these manipulative objects as longs and shorts. By referring to these objects as the numbers that they represent rather than their physical attributes, the teacher further reinforces conceptual understanding of place value and regrouping. Use the representational level drawings suggested in the article and Figure 2. These drawings similarly depict the Base-10 blocks, are simple to draw, and lend themselves to organization. The use of circles, squares, or other shapes may lead to disorganization and inefficient use of instructional time as students may perseverate on their drawings. Students who have received instruction may have some skills or learned error patterns associated with regrouping procedures. These students may resist the use of manipulative objects or drawings, insisting that they already know how to do it. Be consistent and persistent in the instructional steps at the concrete and representational levels. In my experience as a researcher and classroom teacher, indulging the students protests and skipping steps has resulted in further reinforcement of error patterns, lack of conceptual understanding, or inefficient learning. Avoid using food items as manipulative objects to represent ones and tens. These may be distracting and lead to management problems because of consumption of instructional materials.