See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327404237

Modified Schema-Based Instruction to Develop Flexible Mathematics

Problem-Solving Strategies for Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder

Article in Remedial and Special Education · September 2018

DOI: 10.1177/0741932518792660

CITATIONS READS
28 1,397

2 authors:

Sarah Kirsten Cox Jenny Root

Michigan State University Florida State University
18 PUBLICATIONS 164 CITATIONS 79 PUBLICATIONS 1,577 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jenny Root on 04 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

792660
research-article2018
RSEXXX10.1177/0741932518792660Remedial and Special EducationCox and Root

Research Study
Remedial and Special Education

Modified Schema-Based Instruction

1­–13
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
to Develop Flexible Mathematics sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0741932518792660
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518792660

Problem-Solving Strategies for rase.sagepub.com

Students With Autism Spectrum

Disorder

Sarah K. Cox, MEd1 and Jenny R. Root, PhD, BCBA1

Abstract
The Common Core State Standards in Mathematics outline both the content and practices students must engage in at each
grade level to become mathematically proficient. Mathematical processes include problem solving, reasoning and proof,
communication, and procedural fluency, which includes flexible thinking. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the
effectiveness of modified schema-based instruction (MSBI) on the acquisition and maintenance of math content and practices
by middle school students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Two middle school students with ASD learned to solve
proportional word problems containing extraneous information. Specifically, we measured mathematical problem-solving
flexibility and communication using a 4-point rubric. Results of the reversal design found a functional relation between MSBI
and the students’ ability to flexibly solve the mathematical word problems and explain their answer, suggesting MSBI may
be a useful strategy for some students with ASD.

Keywords
autism, exceptionalities, mathematics, instruction, problem solving, proportions, access to the general curriculum

As the number of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagno-
ses continues to increase, the number of students with ASD
included in general education classrooms also increases. In
2013-2014, more half a million (n = 538,000) students had
an ASD diagnosis, with almost 40% of those students
spending 80% or more of their day in general education
classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics, 2016). While these students are
held to the same accountability standards as their typically
developing peers (i.e., high-stakes testing), students with
ASD have been found to perform below the national aver-
age in academic measures (Wei, Jennifer, Shattuck, &
Blackorby, 2017). Students receiving special education ser-
vices under the category of autism receive an individualized
education program to promote academic and functional
progress for that individual child. The supreme court deci-
sion (Endrew v. Douglas, 2017) ruled schools must help
students with disabilities make meaningful educational
progress through goal-driven instruction based on student’s
needs that are considerate of the student’s strengths. While
students with ASD are likely to struggle with mathematical
practices such as problem solving (Oswald et al., 2016) and
flexibility (D’Cruz et al., 2013), these same students often
have inherent strengths related to mathematics that may
help them develop routines and systems.
Students with ASD are likely to demonstrate strengths in
applying rule-based constructions and attention to detail
(Baron-Cohen, 2002). Recent research on the academic pro-
files of students with ASD who have typical to above aver-
age intelligence demonstrate that basic academic skills (e.g.,
encoding and rote skills) are a strength, compared with more
complex and abstract tasks, such as problem solving
(Schaefer Whitby & Mancil, 2009). In mathematics, this
general achievement profile may result in success in early
grades when instruction focuses on procedures and simple
calculation tasks, with more difficulties experienced as
mathematics becomes more abstract. Mathematical problem
solving is one area of mathematics that is especially difficult
1
Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jenny R. Root, Assistant Professor in Special Education, School
of Teacher Education, Florida State University, 1114 W. Call St.,
Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.
Email: jrroot@fsu.edu
Associate Editor: Ginevra Courtade
2 Remedial and Special Education 00(0)
for students with ASD (Bae, Chiang, & Hickson, 2015;
Oswald et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2017). Middle school is often
the time that mathematics instruction moves away from pro-
cedural skills and places more emphasis on mathematical
reasoning, abstract thought, and problem solving. This tran-
sition away from procedure-based activities may contribute
to the phenomena where students with ASD progress ade-
quately in elementary classrooms, only to fall behind their
typically developing peers in middle school (Hart Barnett &
Cleary, 2015).
Mathematics education researchers have noted that stu-
dents who are successful mathematical thinkers possess two
types of mathematical knowledge: (a) conceptual under-
standing and (b) procedural skills (Rittle-Johnson, 2017).
Conceptual understanding is the student’s ability to under-
stand the mathematical principles or relationships that under-
lie the targeted concept (Rittle-Johnson & Schneider, 2015).
For example, when a student is learning about proportions,
he or she may make connections to other mathematical con-
cepts such as ratios and fractions (Rittle-Johnson & Schneider,
2015). Executive functioning skills such as inhibition and
flexible thinking are related to the development of conceptual
understanding (Cragg & Gilmore, 2014). Conceptual under-
standing may therefore be more difficult for students with
ASD, as they often display deficits in executive functioning
skills (Happe, Booth, Charlton, & Hughes, 2006).
Procedural skills or procedural understanding, on the
contrary, is the ability to both know which procedure to
follow and complete the appropriate steps to arrive at the
correct answer (Rittle-Johnson & Schneider, 2015).
Following logical procedures is often a strength of students
with ASD (Baron-Cohen, 2002), but selecting the appro-
priate strategy and monitoring their own progress to solve
a mathematical word problem is considerably more chal-
lenging (Root & Browder, 2017). For example, following
the procedural steps to use cross-multiplication to find the
missing value in a proportional calculation task may not
prove challenging for a middle school student with ASD
who has been in general education mathematics classes and
has memorized basic multiplication facts. However, if pre-
sented with a mathematical word problem that represented
the same mathematics relationship, the student would first
need to translate the problem into a mathematical structure,
recognizing that it represents a proportional relationship,
and then select cross-multiplication as a viable strategy.
Solving word problems is much more complex than a cor-
responding calculation task, as students must conceptually
understand “what is happening” in the problem to select
the appropriate strategy, and then must be able to apply
their procedural knowledge in novel situations (such as a
new word problem).
This ability to apply the same procedure in different con-
texts and to be able to identify multiple strategies to solve
the same problem is known as procedural flexibility
(Rittle-Johnson, 2017). The Common Core State Standards
in Mathematics (CCSSM; Common Core State Standards
Initiative, 2017) suggest, “Without a flexible base from
which to work, students may be less likely to . . . represent
problems coherently, justify conclusions . . . explain the
mathematics accurately . . . or deviate from a known proce-
dure to find a shortcut” (para. 11). Cognitive flexibility in
students with ASD is significantly weaker than that of their
typically developing peers (D’Cruz et al., 2013). Therefore,
students with ASD who possess adequate computation
skills and the ability to follow procedures may still need
supports to solve mathematical word problems flexibly,
using effective strategies. Students who are successful in
mathematics courses have procedural skills, a conceptual
knowledge of mathematical concepts, and the ability to use
procedural flexibility when solving mathematics problems.
The CCSSM’s (2017) content and practice standards found
in the middle grades emphasize a deep mathematical under-
standing, which requires procedural and conceptual knowl-
edge of mathematics, and an ability to flexibly apply
mathematical procedures in a variety of mathematical con-
texts. Mathematical flexibility may be particularly difficult
for students with ASD, who display repetitive/restrictive
thoughts or behaviors, and therefore are likely to need direct
instruction on how to solve problems more than one way.
To evaluate a student’s conceptual understanding, proce-
dural skills, and procedural flexibility, the CCSSM (2017)
emphasize the importance of connecting mathematical
practices to mathematical content in the development of
instruction and assessments. The CCSSM specify that stu-
dents in the sixth grade should be able to communicate their
use of proportional reasoning to solve real-world mathe-
matical problems. Word problem solving is a critical com-
ponent of mathematics instruction, and a skill that is
essential for adequate performance on statewide assess-
ments as well as functioning in a society that continues to
become more technologically and mathematically advanced.
Jitendra, Nelson, Pulles, Kiss, and Houseworth (2016) sug-
gest mathematics is particularly challenging for students
with deficiencies in working memory, language, and atten-
tive behavior, all of which are areas of difficulty for stu-
dents with ASD. An important component of helping
students develop and employ effective mathematical prob-
lem solving is to provide opportunities for students to not
only select and apply appropriate strategies across multiple
mathematical domains but also to communicate the ratio-
nale behind those selections.
One particularly difficult, yet critical, concept that is
explored during the middle grades is proportional reason-
ing (Ben-Chaim, Fey, Fitzgerald, Benedetto, & Miller,
1998). In fact, Ben-Chaim et al. (1998) suggest “propor-
tional reasoning is at the heart of middle grade mathemat-
ics” (p. 249). An understanding of proportional
relationships, which are multiplicative associations, serves
Cox and Root
as an important stepping-stone in the development of
mathematical concepts. Despite the importance of and
focus on proportional reasoning, some researchers suggest
that many individuals do not develop an adequate concep-
tual understanding of proportional reasoning (e.g., Hoffer,
1988; Jitendra et al., 2009). Proportional reasoning is
essential for higher level math classes, which provide
access to higher education and employment opportunities
(Ben-Chaim et al., 1998). Given the extremely low post-
secondary opportunities for students with ASD, research
to investigate effective methods to teach proportional rea-
soning to students with ASD, particularly in applied set-
tings, is imperative to improving individual’s overall
mathematics achievement levels.
One strategy that emphasizes both conceptual and proce-
dural knowledge and has been effective in teaching students
with mathematics difficulties and learning disabilities to
solve proportional word problems is schema-based instruc-
tion (SBI). SBI is an evidence-based practice (EBP) for
teaching mathematical problem solving to students with
mathematics disabilities (e.g., Jitendra et al., 2015; Peltier
& Vannest, 2017). SBI is designed to help students concep-
tually understand the word problems through visual repre-
sentations and teacher models to provide insight into the
logical thinking involved in solving the problem (e.g.,
Jitendra et al., 2009). SBI traditionally incorporates four
components: (a) identify the schema, (b) complete the cor-
responding schematic diagram, (c) identify a solution plan,
and (d) carry out the plan and check for reasonableness
(Peltier & Vannest, 2017).
While no known studies have researched the effective-
ness of SBI to teach multiplicative (e.g., proportional)
word problems for students with ASD, Jitendra et al.
(2009) found positive results using SBI to teach propor-
tional word problems to middle school students. The
10-week SBI instructional unit demonstrated a statisti-
cally significant difference in test scores between students
who received the treatment and students in the control
group. Jitendra, Harwell, Karl, Simonson, and Slater
(2017) extended these findings in a randomized control
trial to investigate the effectiveness of SBI as a Tier 1
instructional strategy. The study found that students in the
treatment condition outperformed the students in the con-
trol condition on the measure of proportional reasoning,
but there were no significant differences in the overall
mathematical problem-solving skills for students with
mathematical disabilities compared with those without an
identified mathematical disability. Findings from these
studies support the use of SBI to promote a conceptual
understanding and use of flexible problem-solving strate-
gies in proportional word problems for seventh-grade stu-
dents with and without an identified mathematics learning
disability, and suggest that some students may need addi-
tional scaffolds to further extend the effectiveness of SBI.
3
Recent research has combined the key components of
SBI with EBPs for teaching students with ASD, such as
prompting, modeling, and task analysis (Wong et al.,
2015), to teach addition and subtraction word problems to
students with ASD (e.g., Root & Browder, 2017; Root,
Browder, Saunders, & Lo, 2017; Root, Henning, &
Boccumini, 2018). This modified schema-based instruc-
tion (MSBI) maintains the key aspects of SBI while pro-
viding students with enhanced visual supports, a task
analysis as a heuristic in place of a mnemonic, and system-
atic prompting and feedback in addition to explicit instruc-
tion. While Root and colleagues demonstrated positive
findings across three single-case studies that taught stu-
dents with ASD to solve word problems using MSBI, the
math content has focused on additive problem types (i.e.,
group, compare, and change).
Students with ASD may particularly benefit from SBI, as
it is designed to teach metacognitive skills and models flex-
ible thinking, both areas of need for many students with
ASD (Bull & Scerif, 2001), but many may need the addi-
tional supports provided by MSBI. The current study sought
to extend the literature by investigating the effectiveness of
MSBI to teach proportion word problem solving for middle
school students with ASD as well as to address prior limita-
tions of MSBI research, namely whether student perfor-
mance would maintain with visual supports were removed.
Specifically, this investigation sought to improve students’
conceptual understanding, procedural understanding, and
procedural flexibility through a MSBI intervention using
proportional word problems containing extraneous infor-
mation. The following research question was addressed:
Research Question 1: Is there a functional relation
between the use of a modified schema-based instruc-
tional strategy with provided visual supports and the
increased procedural flexibility and mathematical com-
munication (as measured by a researcher created rubric)
of middle school students with ASD when solving pro-
portional word problems?
Method
Participants
Two middle school students with ASD participated in this
study. Both participants were recruited through a social
media forum for parents of children with ASD following
institutional review board approval. Students were eligible
to participate based on the following criteria: (a) parent
report of participation in sixth-, seventh-, or eighth-grade
general education mathematics classes and (b) uneven
mathematical abilities, defined as greater computational
skills than word problem skills measured by Test of
Mathematical Abilities–Third Edition (TOMA-3; Brown,
4 Remedial and Special Education 00(0)
Cronin, & Bryant, 2012) results comparing the Computation
and Word Problems subtests. Following parental consent
and student assent, the researcher administered the TOMA-3
to confirm participant eligibility.
Rex was a 14-year-old Hispanic male in the eighth grade
with a diagnosis of ASD and attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) from a local physician. Rex’s mother
reported that he was diagnosed with ASD when he was 3
years old after his older brother was diagnosed. Rex attended
a public charter school where he received 100% of his
instruction in general education classrooms. He received spe-
cial education services under the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) category of autism. According to his
mother, Rex was having a difficult time answering mathe-
matical word problems, but math had previously been his
strongest subject. His mathematical achievement profile was
uneven with a higher calculation ability (16th percentile =
below average) than mathematical problem solving (<1 per-
centile = very poor) on the TOMA-3 subtests of Computation
and Word Problems. During prescreening sessions, the inter-
ventionist observed that Rex was able to verbally answer
questions, and was enthusiastic about America’s funniest
home videos and dinosaurs. Rex’s mother did note that he
had a processing delay, so the interventionist gave Rex a few
seconds of additional wait time prior to prompting. The inter-
ventionist also observed that Rex was very careful in his
handwriting and would often erase and rewrite answers,
occasionally ripping the paper.
Jade was a 14-year-old multiethnic female in the seventh
grade with a diagnosis of ASD. A local physician also diag-
nosed Jade with ASD at 3 years old. Jade attended a public
middle school where she received 100% of her instruction
in the general education classroom. She received special
education services under the category of autism. Her father
described her mathematical ability as “improving with
instruction.” He expressed concern that the strategies she
used were ineffective, and that she relied heavily on picto-
rial representations that were not representative of the
mathematical problem. Her mathematical profile was also
uneven with a higher calculation score (25th percentile =
average) than mathematical problem solving (9th percentile
= below average) on the TOMA-3 subtests of Computation
and Word Problems. During prescreening sessions, the
interventionist easily communicated with Jade in a tradi-
tional back and forth rhythm. Jade often talked through her
thinking in a rote, systematic, fashion.
Setting
This study took place after school hours during times that
were convenient for the parents and students in a college
town in the Southeastern United States. The sessions for
Rex all took place in his home at the kitchen table, while the
sessions for Jade all took place at the local library on a small
table. Throughout the study, both participants received daily
mathematics instruction from their general education teach-
ers that followed the grade-aligned state standards. Sessions
occurred 2 or 3 times per week in a quiet, semiprivate envi-
ronment. All sessions were video recorded for fidelity. The
first author, a doctoral student in special education and a
former mathematics teacher, served as the interventionist
for all sessions.
Materials
Materials included worksheets displaying word problems
and directions, pencils with erasers, and a graphic organizer
(see Figure 1) that also served as a task analysis. Word prob-
lems in this study represented proportional relationships
using whole numbers in both the problem and correct solu-
tion, and contained extraneous information. Directions to
solve the problem two ways and explain their reasoning
were included on every word problem (see Figure 1). A
mathematics education professor reviewed all word prob-
lems for content validity. To ensure word problems were
equitable across conditions, the word problems were ran-
domly assigned prior to the beginning of the study to ses-
sion number and participants were never given the same
problem more than once. Figure 1 contains additional
examples.
While the word problems were all of equal difficulty and
followed a similar structure and format across conditions,
the worksheets between baseline and intervention were dif-
ferent. During the baseline sessions, the worksheets only
contained the word problem and instructions typed at the
top of an 8.5″ × 11″ paper. During intervention sessions,
the worksheets also included a graphic organizer containing
a nine-step task analysis and schematic diagrams to help the
student solve the problem two ways and explain their rea-
soning. The nine steps included elements of SBI (Jitendra
et al., 2015) and metacognition instruction. The steps were
as follows: (a) read the problem, (b) underline the question,
(c) ask about words that I don’t understand, (d) what are my
units? (e) cross out information that I don’t need, (f) com-
plete the organizer, (g) choose your first strategy, (h) make
a table, and (i) answer your question from #2, then explain
your answer.
The first schematic diagram (see Step 6 on Figure 1) was
adapted from Jitendra et al. (2009). Rectangles were
included for the students to write the units of measurement
next to squares where the quantity was written. The numer-
ator of both ratios was color coded in blue while the denom-
inator was outlined in purple. This color scheme was carried
out throughout the graphic organizer, with the students writ-
ing their units of measurement (Step 4) and completing a
table (Step 8) in the same color-coding to provide enhanced
visual supports, as is recommended for MSBI (Spooner,
Saunders, Root, & Brosh, 2017).
Cox and Root 5

Figure 1. Worksheets.
Note. Top worksheet provided in baseline sessions and bottom worksheet used in intervention sessions.
6 Remedial and Special Education 00(0)
Design and Measurement
A single-case ABAB reversal design replicated across par-
ticipants (Gast & Ledford, 2014) was used to demonstrate a
functional relation between MSBI with visual supports and
mathematical word problem-solving flexibility and com-
munication skills. The baseline (word problem and direc-
tions only) and intervention (MSBI with visual supports)
conditions were alternated and repeated to allow for three
demonstrations of experimental effect. Maintenance data
were collected after the second intervention phase, which
included only providing visual supports. Decisions to move
from one condition to the next were based on a demonstra-
tion of stable level change across at least three data points.
Two maintenance probes were conducted to measure inde-
pendent completion of the word problem task when pro-
vided with only visual supports.
Dependent variables. Mathematical word problem-solving
flexibility and communication was the dependent variable,
measured by a 4-point rubric similar to those used by Rock-
well, Griffin, and Jones (2011) and Jitendra et al. (2017).
Participants could earn up to four points for each problem
for the following behaviors: (a) show your work two ways,
(b) solve the problem, and (c) explain your answer. Partici-
pants earned one point for each strategy they used to solve
the problem as long they were appropriate (i.e., resulted in
a correct answer or could have been correct if the calcula-
tion had been accurate), resulting in up to two possible
“show your work” points for each problem. Participants
earned one point for “solve the problem” if they provided a
correct answer, including the unit of measurement as indi-
cated in Step 4 on Figure 1 and Table 1 (e.g., minutes). The
final point, “explain your answer,” was earned when the
participant explained the mathematical relationship in the
word problem either verbally or in written form, to allow
for student preference. The explanation was coded as “cor-
rect” when the student offered an accurate written or verbal
indication that the mathematical quantities in the word
problem were proportional. The directions for earning these
four points were available to participants in both baseline
and intervention through the directions to “solve the prob-
lem two ways and show your work . . . explain your reason-
ing.” The first three points measured flexibility and problem
solving. The last point measured communication. Data
were taken during the three word problems completed inde-
pendently each session, allowing up to 12 points to be
earned each session (see Table 1).
Interobserver agreement (IOA) and procedural fidelity (PF). The
first author trained a second observer, who was a graduate
student in special education, in an hour-long session on pro-
cedures for collecting data on dependent variables and PF.
The second observer watched at least 20% of the sessions
for all participants across all phases and took IOA and PF
data. Agreement was calculated as the number of agree-
ments divided by the number of agreements plus disagree-
ments multiplied by 100. Anytime agreement was below
90%, a disagreement discussion was held between the data
collectors.
Average IOA for Rex during baseline sessions was
100%, and 100% for intervention sessions. Average
agreement for Jade during baseline sessions was 88%
(range = 83%–92%), and 92% for intervention sessions
(range = 92%–92%). For the first participant, Rex, the
second coder recorded data for 33%, 25%, 25%, and 25%
of the videos across the four phases with 100% agree-
ment. IOA for Jade was also calculated for 33%, 33%,
25%, and 25% of the sessions across the four phases with
an average agreement of 90%.
PF was coded following a checklist in baseline and inter-
vention sessions. To achieve full PF, the interventionist
needed to discuss each step of the graphic organizer during
the model question, provide appropriate feedback during
the guided practice question, and offer no prompt or spe-
cific praise during the independent questions. PF for base-
line was calculated identically to the three test questions
found in the intervention phases, without the model, lead,
test procedure. The secondary observer calculated PF for
the same sessions that IOA was recorded, and PF was calcu-
lated at 100% for all sessions, across all experimental con-
ditions for both students.
Procedures
Baseline. During baseline, the students were told that they
were going to solve three mathematics word problems inde-
pendently. They were asked to read the problems and do
their best to answer the questions. The researcher offered to
read the problem aloud if the student requested assistance,
but no prompting or feedback was provided.
Intervention. The intervention consisted of instruction using
MSBI with provided visual supports, a treatment package
that includes (a) explicit instruction on using a task analysis
as a heuristic for solving the problem, (b) enhanced visual
supports or graphic organizers that demonstrate the mathe-
matical relationship between quantities in the problem, and
(c) use of systematic prompting and feedback (Root &
Browder, 2017; Spooner et al., 2017).
Each intervention session then followed a model, lead,
and test format where the interventionist (a) modeled how
to follow the steps of the task analysis to flexibly solve one
problem two ways and explain the answer, (b) led the par-
ticipant in guided practice through solving a second prob-
lem using systematic prompting and feedback (e.g., least to
most prompting), and (c) tested the participant’s ability to
flexibly solve the problems and explain (communicate)
Cox and Root 7

Table 1. Expected Student Responses for Each Step of Task Analysis.

Step Action Expected student response

1 Read the problem
2 Underline the question
3 Ask about words I don’t
understand
4 What are my units?
5 Cross out information I
don’t need
6 Complete the organizer
7 Choose your first
strategy*
8 Make a table*
9 Answer your question
from #2* and explain*
Student read the problem out loud or asked the interventionist to read it out loud.
The student found the question by locating the question mark and underlined the question
sentence.
The student identified any words that he or she was unfamiliar with, and discussed the
meaning of the word with the interventionist.
The student wrote the two units of measurement that were relevant to the proportional
question asked. The units of measurement were written in the purple and blue boxes, and
the student used that color-coding consistently throughout the task analysis.
The student identified the extraneous information in the word problem and drew a line
through it.
The student completed the schematic diagram with the relevant proportional quantities.
The student used one appropriate strategy to solve the proportional word problem (i.e.,
cross multiply, unit rate, or equivalent fractions) and showed their work.
The student wrote the two proportions in the first and last columns of the table. Then
the student completed the table with other proportional relationships and generated
the multiplicative “rule” by finding what number is multiplied or divided for each of the
proportions in the table.
The student re-read the question they underlined in step number two and answered the
question and explained why their answer made sense either verbally or in written format.

Note. Each action marked with a * indicates a point on the problem-solving flexibility and communication rubric.

their reasoning through independent practice during three
problems. During the first model session, participants were
provided a 30-min overview of proportional relationships
through an interactive one-on-one lesson. During this first
overview lesson, the interventionist discussed what propor-
tions were, how to tell whether two proportions were equiv-
alent, and gave examples and non-examples of equivalent
proportions using real-world situations and function tables
on lined paper. Subsequent model sessions only demon-
strated how to solve the problems. During the lead phase (or
guided practice) of each intervention session, the researcher
followed a least-to-most prompting hierarchy if the partici-
pant did not respond within 5 s, which included (a) general
verbal prompt such as “what’s next?” (b) specific verbal
prompt such as “step number four asks what your units are,
write your units in the boxes,” and (c) a model retest, where
the instructor modeled how to complete the step while pro-
viding a “think aloud” and then had the participant repeat
the step. Following methods used in prior MSBI studies
(e.g., Browder et al., 2018; Root & Browder, 2017; Root
et al., 2017), the error correction procedure during guided
practice was an immediate model, such as “for step number
8 we need to fill in the table and write the rule, the rule is
hours times 30 equals miles because this is what our table
shows.” During independent practice, no prompting or
feedback was provided except for general praise such as
“thanks for working so hard” to encourage participants to
continue their work.
Maintenance. During the maintenance phase, the students
answered three problems independently, without any model
or guided practice. Participants were provided with the
same worksheets as intervention (i.e., with graphic orga-
nizer and schematic diagrams).
Results
Both participants used multiple strategies, explained their
reasoning, and answered the mathematical word problem
accurately when they had access to the task analysis and
schematic diagrams, as demonstrated in Table 2. During
the baseline phases when only provided with task direc-
tions and the word problem, neither participant engaged in
mathematical practices such as communication, flexibil-
ity, or reasoning as consistently as they did during inter-
vention phases. Interestingly, however, the two participants
varied in their engagement of mathematical practices.
While Rex did not communicate in written or verbal form
during baseline phases, he was able to answer some of the
questions correctly using mental math. After intervention
with MSBI and provided visual supports, Rex used written
expression to demonstrate a conceptual understanding of
the mathematical relationship found in the proportional
word problems. Jade, used both verbal and written com-
munication during the baseline sessions to express her
mathematical understanding. Her verbal and written
expressions during baseline showed an attention to the
objects of the mathematical word problems (i.e., flower
pots, brownies, etc.) without understanding the propor-
tional relationship inherent in the proportional word prob-
lems. During the first baseline sessions, Jade often used
pictures to draw her mathematical thinking or
8 Remedial and Special Education 00(0)

Table 2. Points Awarded for Each Step of the Rubric Across Participants.

Flexibility and
communication Points Baseline Baseline Intervention Intervention
measurement possible mean range mean range
Rex
1. Strategy 1 3 0.00 (0%) 0–0 2.63 (88%) 2–3
2. Strategy 2 3 0.00 (0%) 0–0 2.38 (79%) 2–3
3. Correct solution 3 1.71 (57%) 1–3 2.38 (79%) 2–3
4. Explain 3 0.00 (0%) 0–0 2.50 (83%) 2–3
Total 12 1.71 (57%) 1–3 9.88 (82%) 8–12
Jade
1. Strategy 1 3 1.71 (57%) 1–3 3.00 (100%) 3–3
2. Strategy 2 3 0.14 (5%) 0–1 2.71 (90%) 2–3
3. Correct solution 3 0.86 (29%) 0–2 2.43 (81%) 2–3
4. Explain 3 0.71 (24%) 0–2 2.43 (81%) 2–3
Total 12 3.43 (29%) 1–6 10.57 (88%) 9–12

used addition procedures to solve for an answer. During
intervention, Jade demonstrated a conceptual understand-
ing of the mathematical relationship by completing the
provided schematic diagrams and proportional tables rep-
resenting the multiplicative relationship of the quantities
in the proportional word problems.
Rex
During the first baseline phase, the first participant, Rex,
earned an average of 1.33 points (median = 1) for his math-
ematical word problem-solving flexibility and communica-
tion (subsequently referred to as flexibility and
communication) and correctly solved a total of four out of
nine word problems over three sessions (range = 1–2). He
did not show any work or explain his reasoning for any of
the questions. When he entered the intervention phase, his
scores demonstrated an immediate increase in level, with an
average flexibility and communication score of 10.75
(range = 10–12, median = 10.5) and he correctly solved 10
out of 12 word problems over four sessions. During this
first intervention phase, Rex diligently completed the
graphic organizer, and verbally explained how to solve the
word problem when prompted.
When Rex returned to the baseline phase, his flexibil-
ity and communication scores immediately decreased,
with an average score of 2 out of 12 for four sessions
(range = 1–3, median = 2), and he answered eight out of
12 word problems correctly. After reimplementing the
intervention, Rex immediately increased his flexibility
and communication scores to an average of nine out of 12
for four sessions (range = 8–12, median = 8), and he
answered nine out of 12 word problems correctly. During
the maintenance, Rex earned 12 out of 12 flexibility and
communication points, and answered all six word prob-
lems correctly. Although Rex requested assistance at the
beginning of maintenance, he independently answered
every word problem correctly, used at least two strate-
gies, and explained his reasoning for each problem.
Figure 2 demonstrates an immediate level change between
each experimental phase in Rex’s mathematical problem-
solving flexibility and communication scores, providing
three demonstrations of an effect.
Jade
The second student, Jade, scored an average of 2.33 out of
12 for her mathematical problem-solving flexibility and
communication (range = 1–4, median = 2) during her first
baseline phase, and answered two out of nine word problems
correctly. Throughout these initial baseline sessions, Jade
used several ineffective problem-solving strategies (e.g.,
drawing pictures of bags of dirt and flowers or adding). After
the introduction of the intervention, her flexibility and com-
munication scores immediately improved to an average
score of 11.33 out of 12 (range = 11–12, median = 11), and
she answered eight out of nine word problems correctly
across the intervention sessions. When the intervention was
removed and the student returned baseline, her flexibility
and communication scores immediately dropped to an aver-
age of 4.25 out of 12 points (range = 2–5, median = 8.5),
with only four out of 12 word problems answered correctly.
During the final intervention phase, Jade scored an aver-
age of 10 out of 12 flexibility and communication points
(range = 9–11, median = 10), and answered nine out of 12
questions correctly. Jade was also able to maintain an aver-
age of 11 flexibility and communication points (range =
10–12, median = 11) during the maintenance phase without
Cox and Root 9

Figure 2. Graphs of mathematical problem-solving flexibility and communication based on a 4-point rubric: (a) show your work one
way, (b) show your work a second way, (c) solve correctly, and (d) explain your answer.

the researcher model or feedback portion of the interven- phases, replicating three demonstrations of an effect of
tion. Figure 2 demonstrates an immediate level change in MSBI on mathematical word problem-solving flexibility
Jade’s problem-solving flexibility between experimental and communication.
10
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of
MSBI with provided visual supports on acquisition and
maintenance of mathematics content and practices by
middle school students with ASD. Participants were
taught to understand the problem structure, identify rele-
vant information, use multiple strategies to solve propor-
tion word problems, and explain their mathematical
reasoning. A functional relation was found between MSBI
with provided visual supports and mathematical word
problem-solving flexibility and communication for both
participants. Both participants correctly solved propor-
tional word problems containing extraneous information
using multiple strategies and explained their mathemati-
cal reasoning more consistently and at a higher rate dur-
ing intervention and maintenance phases, with skills
returning to baseline levels when MSBI and correspond-
ing visual supports were absent.
Given the limited research on math word problem
solving, particularly related to the important skill of pro-
portions, for students with ASD (Hart Barnett & Cleary,
2015; Spooner, Root, Saunders, & Browder, 2018), it is
necessary to look to interventions that have shown suc-
cessful for other populations and other mathematical
tasks. The treatment package used in this study (MSBI)
adds EBPs for students with ASD to traditional SBI,
which is an EBP for teaching mathematics to students
with high-incidence disabilities (Jitendra et al., 2015;
Peltier & Vannest, 2017). The additional EBPs added
were the use of visual supports (Wong et al., 2015), a task
analysis (Spooner et al., 2018) and systematic prompting
(i.e., least to most prompting; Wong et al., 2015). The
conceptual model of MSBI is based on the premise that
students with ASD and other developmental disabilities
can be successful in problem solving when provided with
explicit instruction and universally designed supports that
draw on their strengths and directly target their areas of
need (Spooner et al., 2017).
The visual supports used during the intervention, includ-
ing the task analysis and schematic diagrams, were designed
to help students identify and organize pertinent information
from the word problem, select a relevant strategy to solve,
check their work (using a second strategy), and communi-
cate their mathematical reasoning using verbal or written
expression (allowing for participant preference). Through
the reversal design, the efficacy of the visual supports was
made apparent when participants were unable to maintain
problem-solving accuracy, flexibility, or communication
when they were withdrawn, addressing a limitation of
designs employed by prior MSBI studies (e.g., Root &
Browder, 2017; Root et al., 2017; Root et al., 2018). This
finding supports the literature on the efficacy of visual sup-
ports such as graphic organizers for students with ASD in
Remedial and Special Education 00(0)
academic tasks (Carnahan & Williamson, 2013), and that
these skills may be “reversible” while still in the acquisition
phase. More robust designs with extended maintenance and
generalization measures are needed to inform the field, par-
ticularly practitioners, about effective and efficient methods
of supporting students metacognitive and problem-solving
skills.
The combination of EBPs used within MSBI (i.e., explicit
instruction, systematic instruction, and schematic diagrams)
is intended to improve students’ conceptual understanding,
procedural knowledge, and procedural flexibility within
word problem-solving tasks. Within the current study, sche-
matic diagrams of the mathematical content along with
explaining mathematical reasoning promoted conceptual
understanding (Jitendra et al., 2016). However, both stu-
dents relied on the schematic diagrams and proportional
tables to represent the mathematical relationship found in
the proportional word problems. When visual supports were
present, students were also able to communicate their math-
ematical thinking in verbal or written form, emphasizing
their conceptual understanding of the multiplicative nature
of the proportional word problems. Anecdotally, the inter-
ventionist-observed participants revise their work after solv-
ing the problem a second way, demonstrating an awareness
of reasonable answers. Explicit instruction through a model–
lead–test procedure with teacher think-alouds explicitly
taught procedural knowledge—both in selecting and correct
completion of appropriate procedures.
This study extends previous findings on the effectiveness
of strategies that explicitly teach problem structure through
the use of explicit instruction on schematic diagrams are
effective in improving problem solving of students with dis-
abilities (Jitendra et al., 2015; Peltier & Vannest, 2017).
Specifically, these findings contribute to the emerging body
of research on the effectiveness of MSBI for students with
ASD and other developmental disabilities who possess ade-
quate calculation skills yet have persistent difficulties in
problem solving may benefit from more instructional sup-
ports and systematic instruction than interventions created
for students with mathematics difficulties (Spooner et al.,
2017). These findings are unique as they are the first to show
that MSBI with visual supports can be used to successfully
promote mathematical flexibility and multiplicative mathe-
matical problem solving for students with ASD, extending
prior research that solely has focused on additive problem
types (Root & Browder, 2017; Root et al., 2017; Root et al.,
2018). Furthermore, this study contributes knowledge about
the ability of students with ASD to employ flexible (and
appropriate) mathematical problem-solving strategies and
communicate their reasoning when provided explicit instruc-
tion and visual supports. Helping students with ASD to
engage in mathematical practices could lead to participation
in advanced mathematics courses and improve their oppor-
tunities for higher education and/or employment.
Cox and Root
Implications for Practice
Full participation in middle school mathematics classes
requires students to not only solve calculation problems but
also engage in mathematical practices identified by the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000) such
as problem solving, reasoning, and flexible thinking.
Teachers should consider using strategies that explicitly
teach math content and practices using universally designed
supports, such as traditional or modified SBI to teach stu-
dents with ASD to engage in these mathematical practices.
By providing students with schematic diagrams and teach-
ing them multiple methods for how to use them to represent
“what is happening” in the problem, through explicit strat-
egy instruction and “think alouds,” teachers can promote
conceptual understanding of mathematical relationships
represented in word problems.
Some students with ASD may benefit from a task analy-
sis in place of the general mnemonic used in traditional SBI,
as it provides a more specific and concrete plan for solving
problems and can facilitate self-monitoring (Spooner et al.,
2017). Finally, students with ASD may need visual supports
not only to learn the mathematical concepts and procedures
but also to communicate their own ideas. Visual supports
can facilitate the social communication required in new
math curriculum expectations. Examples of scaffolds may
include color-coding the schematic diagrams, providing the
task analysis to the student, or providing an outlined place
for students to show their work.
Limitations and Future Research
While the reversal design is a robust design that provides
a high degree of internal validity (Gast & Ledford, 2014),
it introduced limitations that should be kept in mind when
interpreting the results of this study. Although it demon-
strated the efficacy of the treatment package, which
included MSBI with provided visual supports, as imple-
mented, it does not allow for causal inference as to which
of the components of the treatment package was respon-
sible for observed effects. That is, it is unknown whether
it was the visual supports (diagrams and task analysis),
the MSBI (i.e., explicit instruction on how to use the
visual supports), or a combination of the two that resulted
in the observed outcomes. While limitations regarding
interpreting effects of treatment packages are common in
the literature on teaching mathematics (Spooner et al.,
2018), future researchers should consider complex
designs such as component analysis or generalization
measures throughout all phases that involve removal or
fading of visual supports.
Relatedly, extended maintenance and generalization
measures are needed to inform the field, particularly
practitioners about effective and efficient methods of
11
supporting students metacognitive and problem-solving
skills. Another limitation of this study is that it simulta-
neously introduced and withdrew instruction and visual
supports, without using generalization measures to iso-
late one of the two variables. While teacher think-alouds
and systematic prompting were withheld during baseline
session, it would be impossible to withdraw previous
instruction. Without the ability to withdraw previous
instruction, the reversal design used in this study sug-
gests that the withdrawal of visual supports was a key
factor to the participant’s performance. Future research
should include generalization measures during baseline
and intervention conditions to investigate student perfor-
mance without visual supports. In addition, future
research should incorporate extended maintenance ses-
sions which systematically fade the visual supports to
inform the feasibility and timeline of fading visual sup-
ports. There is promise that MSBI with visual supports
may be an effective strategy to improve the problem-
solving flexibility and communication for students with
ASD, and future investigations can help identify effec-
tive strategies and a reasonable time frame to fade addi-
tional supports.
These preliminary findings add valuable information
about a potentially effective method to teach mathematics
content and practices to middle school students with ASD,
specifically flexibility and communication related to solving
proportional word problems. The design of this study did not
allow for comparison of different types of word problems
(i.e., proportion, ratio, percent of change), or word problems
that required multiple steps. Future research should explore
the effect of MSBI to increase mathematical problem solv-
ing flexibility when the student is presented with multiple
types of word problems. In addition, due to logistical consid-
erations within the local middle schools, this study was con-
ducted in one-on-one settings. Future researchers should
replicate findings across multiple participants, in various
instructional formats (i.e., small group and general educa-
tion settings) to determine for which students the interven-
tion is most likely to be effective. Students with ASD are
being included in the general education classroom more
often now than ever before (U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). Therefore,
strategies that can be feasibly be used in multiple settings
beyond one-on-one environments would be worthwhile.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The
contents of this article were developed in part under a grant from
12
the U.S. Department of Education, H325D140074. However,
those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S.
Department of Education, and should not assume endorsement by
the Federal Government.
References
Bae, Y. S., Chiang, H. M., & Hickson, L. (2015). Mathematical
word problem solving ability of children with autism spec-
trum disorder and their typically developing peers. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 2200–2208.
doi:10.1007/s10803-015-2387-8
Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). The extreme male brain theory of autism.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 248–254. doi:10.1016/
S1364-6613(02)01904-6
Ben-Chaim, D., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Benedetto,
C., & Miller, J. (1998). Proportional reasoning among
7th grade students with different curricular experi-
ences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36, 247–273.
doi:10.1023/A:1003235712092
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Lo, Y-y, Saunders, A. F., Root, J.
R., Ley Davis, L., & Brosh, C. (2018). Teaching ­students
with moderate intellectual disabilities to solve word
­problems. The Journal of Special Education, 51, 222–235.
doi:10.1177/0022466917721236
Brown, V. L., Cronin, M. E., & Bryant, D. P. (2012). Test of
Mathematical Abilities (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001). Executive functioning as a predic-
tor of children’s mathematics ability: Inhibition, switching,
and working memory. Developmental Neuropsychology, 19,
273–293. doi:10.1207/S15326942DN1903_3
Carnahan, C. R., & Williamson, P. S. (2013). Does compare-
contrast text structure help students with autism spectrum
disorder comprehend science text? Exceptional Children, 79,
347–363. doi:10.1177/001440291307900302
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2017). Standards for
mathematical practices. Retrieved from http://www.corestan-
dards.org/Math/
Cragg, L., & Gilmore, C. (2014). Skills underlying mathematics:
The role of executive function in the development of math-
ematical proficiency. Trends in Neuroscience and Education,
3, 63–68. doi:10.1016/j.tine.2013.12.001
D’Cruz, A. M., Ragozzino, M. E., Mosconi, M. W., Shrestha, S.,
Cook, E. H., & Sweeney, J. A. (2013). Reduced behavioral
flexibility in autism spectrum disorders. Neuropsychology,
27, 152–160. doi:10.1037/a0031721
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 37 S. Ct. 988
(2017).
Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (2014). Single case research method-
ology: Applications in special education and behavioral sci-
ences. New York, NY: Routledge.
Happe, F., Booth, R., Charlton, R., & Hughes, C. (2006).
Executive function deficits in autism spectrum disorders and
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Examining profiles
across domains and ages. Brain and Cognition, 61, 25–39.
doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2006.03.004
Hart Barnett, J. E., & Cleary, S. (2015). Review of evidence-
based mathematics interventions for students with autism
spectrum disorders. Education and Training in Autism and
Developmental Disabilities, 50, 172–185.
Remedial and Special Education 00(0)
Hoffer, A. (1988). Ratios and proportional thinking. In T. Post
(Ed.), Teaching mathematics in grades K-8: Research based
methods (pp. 285–313). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Jitendra, A. K., Harwell, M. R., Karl, S. R., Simonson, G. R., &
Slater, S. C. (2017). Investigating a Tier 1 intervention focused
on proportional reasoning: A follow-up study. Exceptional
Children, 83, 340–358. doi:10.1177/0014402917691017
Jitendra, A. K., Nelson, G., Pulles, S. M., Kiss, A. J., &
Houseworth, J. (2016). Is mathematical representation of
problems an evidence-based strategy for students with math-
ematics difficulties? Exceptional Children, 30, 412–438.
doi:10.1177/002246699703000404
Jitendra, A. K., Petersen-Brown, S., Lein, A. E., Zaslofsky,
A. F., Kunkel, A. K., Jung, P. G., & Egan, A. M. (2015).
Teaching mathematical word problem solving: The qual-
ity of evidence for strategy instruction priming the prob-
lem structure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 51–72.
doi:10.1177/0022219413487408
Jitendra, A. K., Star, J. R., Starosta, K., Leh, J. M., Sood, S.,
Caskie, G., . . . Mack, T. R. (2009). Improving seventh grade
students’ learning of ratio and proportion: The role of schema-
based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
34, 250–264. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.06.001
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles
and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Oswald, T. M., Beck, J. S., Iosif, A. M., McCauley, J. B., Gilhooly,
L. J., Matter, J. C., & Solomon, M. (2016). Clinical and cog-
nitive characteristics associated with mathematics problem
solving in adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. Autism
Research, 9, 480–490. doi:10.1002/aur.1524
Peltier, C., & Vannest, K. J. (2017). A meta-analysis of schema
instruction on the problem-solving performance of elemen-
tary school students. Review of Educational Research, 87,
899–920. doi:10.3102/0034654317720163
Rittle-Johnson, B. (2017). Developing mathematics knowledge.
Child Developmental Perspectives, 11, 184–190. doi:10.1111/
cdep.12229
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2015). Developing con-
ceptual knowledge of mathematics. In R. C. Kadosh & A.
Dowker (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of numerical cognition.
doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642342.013.014
Rockwell, S. B., Griffin, C. C., & Jones, H. A. (2011). Schema-
based strategy instruction in mathematics and the word prob-
lem-solving performance of a student with autism. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 26, 87–95.
doi:10.1177/1088357611405039
Root, J. R., & Browder, D. M. (2017). Algebraic problem solving
for middle school students with autism and intellectual dis-
ability. Exceptionality. Advance online publication. doi:10.10
80/09362835.2017.1394304
Root, J. R., Browder, D. M., Saunders, A. F., & Lo, Y. (2017). Schema-
based instruction with concrete and virtual manipulatives to
teach problem solving to students with autism. Remedial and
Special Education, 38, 42–52. doi:10.1177/0741932516643592
Root, J. R., Henning, B., & Boccumini, E. (2018). Teaching stu-
dents with autism and intellectual disability to solve alge-
braic word problems. Education and Training in Autism and
Developmental Disabilities, 53, 325–338.
 Cox and Root
Schaefer Whitby, P. J., & Mancil, R. (2009). Academic achieve-
ment profiles of children with high functioning autism and
Asperger syndrome: A review of the literature. Education and
Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 551–560.
Spooner, F., Root, J. R., Saunders, A. F., & Browder, D. M.
(2018). An updated evidence-based practice review on teach-
ing mathematics to students with moderate and severe dis-
abilities. Remedial and Special Education. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1177/1540796917697119
Spooner, F., Saunders, A., Root, J., & Brosh, C. (2017). Promoting
access to common core mathematics for students with severe
disabilities through mathematical problem solving. Research
& Practice for Persons with Severe Disability, 42, 171–186.
doi:10.1177/1540796917697119
View publication stats
13
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. (2016). Fast facts. Retrieved from https://nces.
ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=64
Wei, X., Jennifer, W. Y., Shattuck, P., & Blackorby, J. (2017).
High school math and science preparation and postsecond-
ary STEM participation for students with an autism spec-
trum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 32, 83–92. doi:10.1177/1088357615588489
Wong, C., Odom, S. L., Hume, K., Cox, A. W., Fettig, A.,
Kucharczyk, S., . . . Schultz, T. R. (2015). Evidence-based
practices for children, youth and young adults with autism
spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 45, 1951–1966. doi:10.1007/s10803-014-
2351-z