IMPLEMENTING SELF-REGULATION
STRATEGIES IN MATH TO PROMOTE
INTRINSIC MOTIVATION AND SELFEFFICACY GROWTH IN 8TH GRADE
STUDENTS
Grant Stephenson, M.S.Ed.
Yojanna Cuenca-Carlino, Ph.D.
TEACHER PARTICIPATING
IN
RESEARCH
Grant Stephenson M.S.Ed.
 Secondary math and history undergraduate
degree.


Currently teaching 8th grade math
Interest in special education led to pursuing my
current master’s degree from Illinois State
University.
 I am NOT an expert! I just wanted to share my
research. I hope it is helpful.

A VIDEO?

Or 2..
AGENDA

Research study used to guide implication
Background
 Research questions
 Overview


SRSD Stages

Specific Lessons
Data Measurements
 Results
 Teaching a Lesson
 Implications for Practice


What I learned as an educator and why I feel it is important
BACKGROUND/ LITERATURE REVIEW
Math and CCSS
• Only 34% and 27% of fourth and
eighth grade students respectively
are proficient in math.
• Students with learning
disabilities have difficulty
assessing their ability to solve
problems, identify and select
appropriate strategies, organize
information, monitor problem
solving processes, evaluate
problems for accuracy, and
generalize strategies to
appropriate situations (Miller &
Mercer, 1997).
SRSD
• SRSD involves six basic
stages of instruction that
include (a) developing and
activating background
knowledge; (b) discussing
the strategy including
benefits and expectations;
(c) cognitive modeling of the
strategy; (d) memorization
of the strategy; (e)
collaborative support of the
strategy; and (f)
independent practice
(Lienemann & Reid, 2006).
BACKGROUND/ LITERATURE REVIEW
Math and CCSS
• One way to assist students
with learning disabilities with
the shift to more contentfocused classes is to provide
them with effective and
efficient learning
strategies.
SRSD
• During instruction, students
are taught to self-regulate
their learning by setting goals,
self-instructing, selfmonitoring, and selfreinforcing
• To date, the majority of SRSD
research has sought to
improve the writing process of
students with LD and
emotional and behavioral
disorders, but it has been used
in mathematics on a select
number of times.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS





To what extent does the SRSD model of instruction
improve students at-risk for mathematical difficulties
or identified with a LD, computational skills and
accuracy on grade level multi-step equations?
Would students be able to maintain gains after
instruction is provided?
To what extent was the intervention provided with
fidelity by the classroom teacher after training was
provided?
Would student’s self-efficacy improve as a result of
instruction?
How do students perceive the effectiveness of SRSD
instruction?
RESEARCH OVERVIEW
A multiple probe across
participants design
6 middle school students
both with and without
learning disabilities.
5 females
Three groups of students
1- N=2
2- N= 2
1 males
3- N= 2
Self-Regulated
Strategy Development
Instruction to Solve
Multi-step Equations
for Middle School
Students with
Learning Disabilities
or Identified At-Risk
Instruction was provided
during the student’s tier 2
math intervention
Part of school’s RtI
program
Classroom Teacher
Research team: one
professors, 2 undergrad
students, one graduate
student
DATA MEASUREMENTS

Equation Probe
Assessed on percentage correct
 Baseline, post, maintenance


Self-Efficacy Survey


Given during baseline and post intervention.
Student Interviews

Only given during post intervention.
“SELF-REGULATED STRATEGY
DEVELOPMENT”
SRSD : Stage
1
Develop
background
knowledge
SRSD: Stage 2
Discuss the
strategy
• Increase background knowledge
• Sign the contract
• Discuss self-determination
• Discuss solving equations
• Discuss terminology associated with
equations
•Introduce DCMCR
•“Don’t Catch My Cat Whiskers”
•Introduced visual aid to show mnemonic with the
equations
SRSD-Stage 3
Modeling the strategy
SRSD- Stage 4
Memorize the strategy
SRSD- Stage 5
Guided practice
SRSD- Stage 6
Independent Practice
• Discuss self-statements and write self-statements
• Observe the teacher modeling how to work through the mnemonic
• Learn about the checklist to use for solving equations
• Introduce self-monitoring sheet
•Practice memorizing the strategy
•Longest of the stages, student practice solving equations with the
guide of the teacher
•Students use self-statements and self-monitoring sheets
throughout these stages
Students require little or no support while solving equations
Students remain on this stage until they successfully solve
all equation consistently
Checklist and other materials are not used
essays
SRSD-STAGE 1
“DEVELOP BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE”

Discuss relevant information and background
BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE FOR SOLVING
EQUATIONS
Purpose of solving an equation and how to check
an equation
 Terminology


Variables, constant, coefficient, etc.
Distributive Property
 Combine Like Terms
 Inverse Operations

STAGE 2 – “DISCUSS IT”
Introduce and discuss the mnemonic created
 “Don’t Catch My Cat Whiskers”
 Don’t = Distribute
 Catch = Combine Like Terms


But Remember! “Pick the vine and never trip and
ultimately intelligent oranges impress old shoes.
My = Multiply or Divide
 Cat = Check
 Whiskers = Way to go you are done!

LET’S PUT IT TOGETHER
THROUGH AN EXAMPLE (SRSD –
3 MODEL)
3(x + 2) + 2x = 3x + 14
DCMCW
Distribute
 3(x + 2) + 2x = 3x + 14


3x + 6 + 2x = 3x + 14
*During stage 1 of instruction, the distributive property
was reviewed and practiced. This was not the first
time students were introduced to this property.
DCMCW
“CATCH” OR COMBINE LIKE TERMS

There are two parts to this step.
Like terms on the SAME SIDE
 Like terms on OPPOSITE SIDES


3x + 6 + 2x = 3x + 14

5x + 6 = 3x + 14

2x = 8
DCMCW – “MULTIPLY/ DIVIDE”

2x = 8

X=4
DCMCR – ‘CHECK”
x=4
 Substitute the solutions in for the variables.
3(x + 2) + 2x = 3x + 14
3(4 + 2) + 2(4) = 3(4) + 14
3(6) + 8 = 12 + 14
18 + 8 = 12 + 14
26 = 26 (It checks out!!)
DCMCW

Way to go you are done!!
STAGE 4
Memorize it
 Students spend a couple of days practicing
memorizing the mnemonic itself
 We used flash cards to help with this stage

STAGE 5 – GUIDED PRACTICE
STAGE 6 – INDEPENDENT PRACTICE
Students continue to self-monitor their work
 However, in this stage, students are working
without the visual aid and checklist
 Students continue on this stage until mastery is
complete

RESULTS
Overall, students math performance and self-efficacy
increased significantly.
 Motivation increased slightly, but the gains were not
as significant as in the equations and self-efficacy
data.
 Also, maintenance data suggests that the strategy
helped with the retention of equation solving.


So, what did this mean for me?

Although the data was not exactly aligned to my
predetermined goals, I still felt as though many valuable
lessons were learned.
DI SRSD
Baseline
Postinstruction
Maintenance
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Alice
40%
30%
April
Percentage of Steps Completed Correctly
20%
10%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
100%
90%
80%
70%
May
Lucy
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0% 100%200%300%400%500%600%700%800%900%
1000%
1100%
1200%
1300%
1400%
1500%
1600%
1700%
1800%
100%
Nicole
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Nick
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Sessions
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
SRSD stages
Implications
Stage 1
“Develop Background”




Stage 2
“Discuss Strategy”


Important to develop background in any
subject.
Students need to know and understand
the background to anything they are
learning.
Understanding the background can help
the students to better understand “Why”
things happen in math.
Developing a strategy to help students
process their thinking can be very
students to check their progress
themselves, which results in increased
self-efficacy.
Developing a specific strategy can also
promote self-regulation through a certain
skill.
Student-created mnemonic?
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
SRSD stages
Implications
Stage 3
“Model it”





Stage 4
“Memorize it”
For any student, modeling is key!
Students need to see what they are
expected to do, how to think, and
what questions to ask themselves.
At first I thought using a script was
difficulty, but later found that it
really made me focus on the
specifics of my modeling.
If a strategy is created, it is useless
unless the students remember it.
Students need time. It is not helpful
to students if you move on without
them fully understanding what they
are expected to do.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
SRSD stages
Stage 5
”Guided Practice”
Implications




Stage 6
“Independent
Practice”

To prevent incorrect application of a
skill, guided practice is important.
This is also a great opportunity to
provide positive support, which will
then increase student self-efficacy.
Providing enough time to practice
on their own is important for
student growth.
As teachers, we are not really able
to view what has been learned until
the students work completely on
their own.
Like with the checklist and selfmonitoring sheets used, providing
students with opportunities to
reflect and record results is
important for self-regulation.
Implications
SRSD can be an effective solution for implementing
self-regulation to students both with and with out
learning disabilities.
I think the process of breaking down a long
processed problem into smaller pieces is what really
helps makes this successful.
Even if not fully implemented, different concepts of
SRSD can be adapted to fit many different lessons
and many different skills.
Writing is most often associated with SRSD
strategies. Writing involves a process and so does
solving equations. I believe that SRSD could be
applied to many different skills that require a
process completion.
APPLICATION IN MY OWN CLASSROOM






Recently, I taught an equation unit to my four 8th
grade math classes.
Spent much more time “developing background
knowledge” than I have ever done in the past.
Didn’t use the exact mnemonic, but focused heavily
on developing patterns in their work.
Consistent guided practice, followed by independent
practice.
Provided many opportunities to “self-check” and
“regulate their own progress” to work on those selfregulation skills as well.
Implementing the SRSD components, although not
exactly as intended, has also proved beneficial to my
students this year.
QUESTIONS?
REFERENCES

Brodesky, A., Parker, C., Murray, E., & Katzman, L. (2002). Accessibility strategies toolkit for mathematics. Retrieved May 18, 2004,
fromhttp://www2.edc.org/accessmath/resources/strategiesToolkit.pdf

Case, L. P., Harris K. R., Graham, S. (1992). Improving the mathematical problem-solving skills of students with learning disabilities: Self-regulated strategy development. The Journal of Special
Education, 26, 1-19.

Cassel, J., & Reid, R. (1996). Use of a self-regulated strategy intervention to improve word problem-solving skills of students with mild disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6(2), 153.

Chung, K. H., & Tam, Y. H. (2005). Effects of cognitive-based instruction on mathematical problem solving by learners with mild intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental
Disability, 30, 207-216.

Cuenca-Carlino, Y., & Mustian, A. L. (2013). Self-regulated strategy development: Connecting persuasive writing to self-advocacy for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral
Disorders, 39(1), 3-15.

Ennis, R. P., Jolivette, K., & Boden, L. J. (2013). STOP and DARE: Self-regulated strategy development for persuasive writing with elementary students with E/BD in a residential facility. Education
& Treatment of Children (West Virginia University Press), 36(3), 81-99.

Gast, D. L. (2010). Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences / david l. gast New York : Routledge, 2010.

Gersten, R., Chard, D., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2008). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities or difficulty learning mathematics: A synthesis of the
intervention research. Portsmouth, NH: RMC
http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/Teaching%20Math%20to%20SLD%20Meta-analysis.pdf

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., &Mason, L. H. (2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 35(7), 1.

Harris, K.R., Graham, S., Mason, L.H., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore: Brookes.

Hauth, C., Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., & Regan, K. (2013). Can students with emotional and/or behavioral disabilities improve on planning and writing in the content areas of civics and
mathematics? Behavioral Disorders, 38(3), 154-170.

Hoover, T. M., Kubina, R. M., & Mason, L. H. (2012). Effects of self-regulated strategy development for POW+TREE on high school students with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 20(1), 20.

Krawec, J., Huang, J., Montague, M., Kressler, B., & de Alba, A. M. (2013). The effects of cognitive strategy instruction on knowledge of math problem-solving processes of middle school students with
learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(2), 80-92. doi:10.1177/0731948712463368

Leinemann, T. O., & Reid., R. (2006). Self-regulated strategy development for students with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(1), 3-11.

Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1997). Educational aspects of mathematics disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 47-56.

Montague, M. (2007). Self-regulation and mathematics instruction. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Wiley-Blackwell), 22(1), 75-83. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00232.x

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Center for EducationStatistics (2013).The Nation’s Report Card:A First Look: 2013 Mathematics and Reading(NCES 2014-451).Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education, Washington, D.C.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Berkeley, S. L., and Marshak, L. (2010). Mnemonic strategies: Evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 79-86. doi:
10.1177/1053451210374985.

Steele, M. M., & Steele, J. W. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning disabilities. Mathematics Teacher, 96, 622-624.

The Center on Instruction (2008)