Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020 Copyright @ by LDW 2020

Instructional Scaffolds in Mathematics Instruction

for English Learners With Learning Disabilities:
An Exploratory Case Study
Qingli Lei*
Yan Ping Xin
Trish Morita-Mullaney
Purdue University

Ron Tzur
University of Colorado-Denver

As today’s classrooms become more and more diverse, there is a growing

need to explore the intersection between English Learners (ELs) and
students with learning disabilities (LD) in the content-specific instruction
of mathematics problem solving. The aim of this study was to determine
which types of instructional scaffolds may be used by math teachers to
effectively support ELs with LD learning multiplicative reasoning. To this
end, we employed an exploratory case study based on a frequency count
analysis of four scaffold types used by the students and the teacher in their
sessions. The results showed that kinesthetic and linguistic scaffolds were
the most beneficial for helping ELs with LD to cultivate mathematical
thinking with both concrete and abstract units, while also helping to
increase the sophistication of their mathematical content-language usage.
In combination with small-group interactions, these scaffolds provide an
effective instructional method for improving multiplicative reasoning
among ELs with LD.
Keywords: Number Concepts and Operations, Mathematical
Knowledge for Teaching, Elementary, English Learners, Scaffolds

Introduction
English learners (ELs) are the fastest-growing student subgroup in the
United States (Morita-Mullaney & Singh, 2019; National Center for Education
Statistics, 2017). Despite federal and state requirements to meet their unique linguistic
needs, ELs are often situated in schools that are under-resourced and have few EL
personnel and/or programs. As a result, EL students may end up being classified as
and receiving services as students with learning disabilities (LD) as a substitution
for English language development services. Often, the instructional services provided
for EL students within a special education program are not specifically geared to
their English language learning needs (Collier, 2011; Kangas, 2019). Furthermore,
established EL programs and general education classrooms often neglect the content
area of mathematics, with most attention being applied toward English language
development (de Araujo, Roberts, Willey, & Zahner, 2018), positioning math as a
universally accessible or language-free content (Lee, Quinn, & Valdés, 2013; Torres-
Velasquez & Rodriguez, 2005).
*Please send correspondence to: Qingli Lei, M.S.Ed., M.A., Department of Educational Studies, Purdue University,
100 N. University Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907, United States of America; Phone: 1-765-409-5262; Email:
[email protected].
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

According to the section on English language acquisition in Title III of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorized as the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015, U.S. schools are accountable for the improvement of
all children, including those with “disability, recently arrived ELs, and long-term
ELs” (Non-Regulatory Guidance, 2016, p. 4). As such, students with limited English
proficiency, or English Learners, as referred to in ESSA, must meet benchmark
achievement goals (pass/do not pass) and make adequate annual growth in English
language proficiency and mathematics, not just English language arts.
This requirement poses a dilemma, given the emphasis on language arts
mentioned above. Thus, in order to meet federal and state accountabilities regula-
tions set forth for dually classified ELs (EL and special education), schools need to
provide linguistically appropriate and content-specific school-level intervention sup-
port in a timely manner to promote the academic performance of dually classified
ELs and address persistent achievement gaps in math (August, Spencer, Fenner, &
Kozik, 2012; de Araujo et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2013). Therefore, understanding how to
provide appropriate interventions for ELs is increasing in importance.

Teaching Math Content and Related Language

ELs experience a dually challenging task of learning the language along
with academic content (Gerena & Keiler, 2012; Kangas, 2019; Short & Fitzsimmons,
2007). Although they may appear to be verbally fluent in English, they may still
struggle with complex academic material that requires producing specific academic
discourse or vocabulary (Gerena & Keiler, 2012; Morita-Mullaney & Stallings, 2018;
Olsen, 2010) that differs from social language in use. In her Academic Literacy in
Mathematics framework, Moschkovich (2015) argues that there are literacy and
language components to learning math and that their inclusion is necessary for lesson
preparation and instruction. Specifically, using Gee’s (2015) work on discourse,
Moschkovich (2015) points out that math has a particular syntax, structure, and
vocabulary that math educators need to understand and employ with and among ELs.
Scholars in the fields of English learning and bilingual education have
recommended the use of instructional scaffolds to help convey meaning to students
at varying levels of English proficiency. Scaffolds may be visual/graphic, linguistic,
interactive, and kinesthetic (Gibbons, 2014; Gottlieb, 2016), and are used by students
and teachers before, during, and after instruction to support content and content-
specific language learning. Thus, scaffolds are important considerations in the
planning of math instruction for dually classified ELs or ELs with learning disabilities
(McGhee, 2011).
In this study, we examined four kinds of instructional scaffolding to analyze
the mathematics instructional discourse exchanges between a teacher and ELs with
LD within the context of a small-group constructivist-oriented learning environment
learning environment. We posed the following research questions:
1. What types of scaffolds do teachers and dually classified ELs make in
multiplicative reasoning during instruction and assessment activities?
2. How do teachers regulate language usage and scaffolding to facilitate
the multiplicative reasoning of dually classified ELs?

124
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

Statement of the Problem

In addition to ELs being the fastest growing student subgroup in the United
States, accounting for 4.6 million students (National Center for Education Statistics,
2017), a subset within this population are also identified as students in special
education. ELs with disabilities represent 13.8% of that 4.6 million, constituting
around 635,000 with this dual classification. This poses a unique challenge because
although the fields of EL, or bilingual education, and special education have definitions
of EL and learning disabilities, respectively, how these two identifiers intertwine in
the context of providing instruction in the classroom has received scant attention.
The EL and special education fields have addressed the possible
overrepresentation of ELs as special education due to ignoring the effects of second
language acquisition on ELs’ academic progress (Association for Supervision and
Development & Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014; Kangas, 2017)
or the absence of available EL instructional services driving referrals (Kangas, 2014).
Alternatively, underrepresentation of ELs in special education has also been studied,
where initial identification is avoided in favor of permitting time for English mastery
to take hold (Sullivan, 2011). Yet, little work to date has identified what types of
instruction are furnished to dually classified ELs with LD.

Literature Review
Students who are dually classified as ELs in special education fall at the
crossroads of English language learning and a specific learning disability, making
instructional service provisions challenging and often unequal, with special education
provisions often taking precedence with limited consideration of students’ language
proficiency in English and other home or heritage languages (Collier, 2011; Kangas,
2014, 2019).
As a result, the individual EL student’s distinct English proficiency level and
specific special education identification do not smoothly guide what instructional
practices are best suited for learning content such as math and its related language
or discourse. To investigate the intersections of these issues, the following literature
review is divided into two sections. First, literature regarding dual classification of
special education and EL is examined. Second, research pertaining to the complexity
of math instruction for dually classified students is reviewed.

Dual Classification of Special Education and EL

Operationally defining an EL in special education is complicated by the
moderating variables of a students’ age, language background, levels of language
proficiency, and socioeconomic status (Linquanti & Cook, 2015). Watkins and Liu
(2013) made an attempt to define a dually classified EL in simple terms, stating that
an ELL1 with disabilities is a student who is eligible for both special education and
English as a second language (ESL) or bilingual education services. There are different
identification issues associated with each service, creating variability in the definition
of an EL with disabilities across the country.
1 The authors use the term ELL or English language learner, which is also used in the literature to describe
students with a language other than English in their background. ESSA, however, uses the term English
Learner (EL).

125
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

This definition clearly demonstrates that researchers in EL/bilingual

education and special education have mostly focused on identification practices of
dually classified students, and not on instructional provisions (Kangas, 2019). This
preoccupation with which EL is in and/or out of special education has led to studies on
disproportionality of under- and over-identification of ELs with learning disabilities
(Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005; Brown & Ault, 2015; Sullivan, 2011).

Math Instruction for Dually Classified Students

Instructional provisions for dually classified ELs with LD is an emerging field.
Few evidence-based and high-impact strategies have been identified for students with
this particular type of dual classification (Klingner, Artiles, & Barletta, 2006; Lesaux,
Kieffer, Faller, & Kelley, 2010; More, Spies, Morgan, & Baker, 2016; Sáenz, Fuchs, &
Fuchs, 2005; Shyyan, Thurlow, & Liu, 2006), and only one of them has specifically
addressed the content area of math (Shyyan et al., 2006). Shyyan et al. (2006) found
that ELs placed greater priority on evidence-based math strategies, whereas their
teachers placed a greater emphasis on other content areas, demonstrating a mismatch
between what dually classified ELs with LD articulate is of most value.

Conceptual Framework
According to a constructivist framework for learning, students and instruc-
tors mediate understanding to move to new and incremental understanding around
target content (Vygotsky, 1962). The instructor plays a key role in facilitating this
framework as he or she attends to what students understand (Tzur et al., 2013; Xin et
al., 2017). According to Tzur et al. (2013):
In our constructivist framework, to solve a task, a child has to (a) as-
similate it into the situation part of an existing scheme, (b) identify
the quantities (mental objects) involved, (c) set a goal compatible
with the question, (d) initiate mental activities on those quantities
that (in the child’s mind) correspond to the depicted relationships,
and (e) constantly compare the actual effects of the activity to the
goal to determine the conclusion of the activity (p. 87).
These five areas work together to build the student’s competency in target
math content by working methodically through these conceptual steps based on how
students respond to new content.
While we chose a constructivist framework for the present study, the most
commonly used approach to address the needs of ELs is the use of accommodations
for tests, which include changing the test itself, the test response format, or the test
process (Abedi, Hofstetter, & Lord, 2004). According to Chiu and Pearson (1999), spe-
cial education and limited English proficient (LEP) students’ (or ELs’) standardized
achievement test scores can increase when they get appropriate accommodations,
yet we know little about how accommodations support daily instructional activities.
The most common accommodations used during instruction include
providing extra time, using a bilingual dictionary, and facilitation within a small
group or specialized attention from an EL specialist. Yet, there are limited instructional
shifts on the part of the teacher because the accommodations are applied after
instruction instead of before and during instruction. A promising paradigmatic shift

126
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

in the field of English learning is the use of supports or scaffolds – the focus on this
study – whereby teachers create the conditions for comprehensible input of content
and language by using scaffolds during instruction (Gibbons, 2014; Gottlieb, 2016;
Krashen, 1998).

Scaffolding
In the teaching-learning framework, scaffolding is a central notion
adapted from Gibbons (2002, 2014) and supported by a constructivist theory of
learning. Scaffolding is an essential support to “enable children [ELs] to perform
tasks independently that previously they could perform only with the assistance or
guidance of the teacher” (Gibbons, 2002, p. vii). Gibbons (2002, 2014) suggested
that scaffolding can also be used for English language teaching to ELs within general
education classrooms, where they spend the majority of their school day. While the
use of scaffolds has been widely studied within special education (Stone, 1998; Wood,
Bruner, & Ross, 1976), this is a relatively new approach within English learning
(Gibbons, 2002, 2014).
Scaffolds are strategies that support the delivery of target content with explicit
inclusion of a given scaffold appropriate for each ELs’ level of English proficiency and,
in this case, the added dimension of a learning disability. Gottlieb (2016) described
four types of instructional scaffolds that teachers can use, and students can engage
in, to foster understanding of target content and related language: visual, linguistic,
interactive, and kinesthetic (Gottlieb, 2013).
Visual scaffolding. Visual scaffolding involves the use of drawings or
photographs to connect English words, phrases, and sentences to visual images, and
assists ELs in learning the target content (Lei, Xin, Morita-Mullaney, & Tzur, 2018).
This approach makes complex ideas feel more accessible to students and makes
the language more memorable while providing comprehensible input of the target
content (McCloskey, 2005). A variety of visual supports can be used to build students’
visual experience in the classroom, including manipulatives, real-life objects, and
multimedia material (Carrasquillo & Rodrigues, 2002; Gottlieb, 2012).
Linguistic scaffolding. Linguistic scaffolding provides effective and
responsive support for students’ language output performance, which requires
teachers to use language that is comprehensible to students when providing them
with new and more sophisticated knowledge, including the use of a slower rate of
speech, simplified vocabulary, or cycling speech with consistent reinforcement of a
target set of words (Bradley & Reinking, 2011; Gibbons, 2003).
Interactive scaffolding. Interactive scaffolding involves a strategic
back-and-forth between teachers and students or among students to facilitate
comprehension of content and related language use. Goffman (1967) proposed the
idea of “interactionism,” which relates “only to those aspects of ‘context’ that are
directly observable and to such immediate links between individuals as their ‘roles,’
‘obligations,’ ‘face-to-face encounters’” (pp. 31–49). An example of instructional
support for interaction involves both students and teachers taking on active roles in
pair work and small-group work (Gibbons, 2008).
Kinesthetic scaffolding. Asher (1969) first introduced a strategy called
Total Physical Response, which directly relates to kinesthetic scaffolding. This

127
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

approach requires students to listen to a language command that may or may not be
stated in their heritage language, and follow it using a physical action immediately
with no expectation of speech production (Asher, 1969). This process lowers their
anxiety, allowing them to produce content knowledge nonverbally, but with a related
object or physical movement. Brand, Favazza, and Dalton (2012) suggested that
students who use kinesthetic scaffolding benefit from “sign language, translation into
another language, gestures” during sessions (p. 139), while not being restricted from
participating in classroom activities due to their lower levels of English proficiency.
In summary, visual scaffolding is the most frequently used scaffold with ELs
as it is readily available and simple to employ (Walqui, 2010; Walqui & vanLier, 2010).
Linguistic and interactive scaffolds, on the other hand, are not seen as helpful as ELs
“lack” supposed English proficiency. Finally, kinesthetic scaffolds, which involve
movement, are often disregarded as movement and motion may not be deemed as
developmentally appropriate for older students.
Regardless of the instructional scaffold(s) used, discourse or language
is a part of the delivery of content. Therefore, how teachers use their language is
critical for dually classified ELs. For instance, Bishop and Whitacre (2010) coded the
teacher’s and the student’s discourse moves as “give moves” for providing information
and “demand moves” for requesting information. Xin, Liu, Jones, Tzur, and Si (2016)
used a similar structure to code the teacher’s and the student’s discourse moves, using
“low,” “potentially high,” and “high” to distinguish between three levels of intellectual
work.
In consideration of instructional scaffolds and related discourse moves,
the conceptual framework that guides our study is shown in Figure 1. As illustrated,
instructional scaffolds and math content occur in tandem, undergirded by thoughtful
preparation of content and related scaffolds.

Figure 1. Instructional scaffolds in math instruction for dually classified ELs.

128
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

Research Methodology
This study was conducted within the larger context of the National Science
Foundation-funded Nurturing Multiplicative Reasoning in Students With Learning
Disabilities/Difficulties project2 (Xin, Tzur, & Si, 2008). With a constructivist view
of learning that is consistent with reform-based instruction, a teaching experiment
(Steffe & Thompson, 2000) was designed and carried out to promote the multiplicative
reasoning of seven pairs of fourth and fifth graders with LD. The present study
focuses on one student, Eliza, a dually classified EL with LD, during an instructional
intervention with her teacher using a constructivist approach.

Mode of Inquiry
An exploratory case study was used to examine the scaffolds used by
teachers and appropriated by dually classified ELs. Yin (2014) defined a case study
as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the ‘case’)
within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and
context may not be clearly evident” (p. 16). The present study investigated the interplay
between teacher and student in mathematics instruction from a constructivist
perspective of learning (Vygotsky, 1962). The teacher (one of the authors) worked
closely with Eliza (the dually classified EL) and another native English speaker with
LD in seven sessions for around 40 minutes each over the course of six months.
As stated earlier, constructivism is a philosophy of learning that focuses on
individuals actively participating in learning rather than passively receiving knowl-
edge (Gunning, 2010). From this perspective, the learning process can only occur
when the learners are actively engaged in integrating new knowledge with existing
knowledge (Tracey & Morrow, 2012). As such, a constructivist teaching frame iden-
tifies the schema and backgrounds of students related to the academic content and
then initiates and mediates related activities so students can build their understand-
ing incrementally. The instructor plays a key role in facilitating this meaning-making
at key mental intervals to ensure greater connection to target content (Tzur et al.,
2013).

Setting and Context of the Study

The study took place at an elementary school in the midwestern United
States in the Matthias District (pseudonym), an urban school district. The school,
Monon Elementary (pseudonym), has a total enrollment of 398 students and is one
of the most populated elementary buildings in a district of 9 elementary schools.
Thirty-four state-licensed teachers serving at Monon elementary (see Table 1).
Thirty-two percent of the students are children of color, with a distribution of 64%
White, 16% Hispanic, 9% Black, 6% Multiracial, 1% Asian, 1% Native American, and
3% as non-identified. Fifty-one percent of the students at the school are eligible for
free and reduced-cost lunch, indicating a high density of poverty and additional Title
I resources to address English language arts reading needs of its students, but not
math. The proportion of ELs for this school district is moderately high at 12.6% of

2 This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant DRL 0822296. The
opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.

129
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

the total school population, a larger representation than the other elementary schools
in the district (Indiana Department of Education, 2006). For special education, 15.5%
of the students are formally identified, which suggests possible over-identification.

Table 1. Thirty-Four State-Licensed Teachers Serving at Monon Elementary

Year Years of teaching Number of teachers

2008-09 0-5 years 4
2008-09 6-10 years 3
2008-09 11-15 years 2
2008-09 16-20 years 4
2008-09 20+ years 21

Each teaching experiment lesson was designed based on an assessment of the

student’s level of understanding of the given math content from the previous session.
In each session, the instructor provided a constructivist framework to promote the
EL’s progress toward multiplicative reasoning (Tzur, Xin, Kenney, & Guebert, 2010)
and problem-solving (Xin, 2012).

Participants
The study includes two types of participants: (a) the instructor conducting
the math intervention and (b) the target students of the math intervention.
Instructor. The instructor for the intervention has over 20 years of experi-
ence in teaching elementary, middle, and high school mathematics (including reme-
dial math). He is bilingual in English and Hebrew; he came to the United States as an
adult and was an English learner himself with his dominant language being Hebrew.
In addition to his K-12 teaching experience, he has served in various faculty positions
in the United States, including the development of collaboration with scholars from
the field of special education and expertise in teaching and researching mathematics
involving students with learning disabilities. He had employed this particular math
intervention in three other studies (Tzur et al., 2013; Xin et al., 2016, 2017), as well
as in numerous public schools – as the lead teacher, a co-teacher, or a coach working
with elementary teachers who implemented the intervention.
Students. Our two student participants attended an after-school program:
(a) Eliza, a fifth-grade dually classified EL with LD and (b) Leslie, a fifth-grade native
English speaker with LD.
According to Eliza’s IEP, she was included in a general education class setting
for 50% of the time and received 45 minutes of math instruction in the resource
room each day from different math instructors. She was placed in a learning support
classroom for reading, English language arts, and math. Eliza’s intellectual functioning
score was 69 on the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (with a 95% confidence interval
ranged between 68 to 132; TestPrep-Online, n.d.). Eliza had been in the special
education program for four years.
The fifth-grade native English student with LD (Leslie) worked as a group
partner with Eliza during each session. Leslie’s intellectual functioning was 80 on

130
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

the full-scale Otis-Lennon test, ranked over one standard deviation below the norm.
Leslie had been in the special education program for four years as well.

Data Sources
The sources of data were teaching videos and on-site field notes taken during
observations of the teaching experiment session. The instruction involved students
engaging in solving multiplicative word problems in the context of a turn-taking, a
platform game we called “Please Go and Bring for Me …” (PGBM). The basic version
of the game involves sending a student to a box with Unifix Cubes in the classroom
with a task of producing and bringing back a tower made of a few cubes (fewer than
10 cubes). After taking 2-9 trips to the box of cues and being asked to bring the
same-size towers, students are asked how many towers (i.e., composite units, CU)
they brought, how many cubes each tower has (i.e., unit rate, UR, Xin, 2012), and how
many cubes (1’s) there are in all. In addition, the teacher also asked students to pose
similar problems to the teacher (or the other student) to evaluate their conceptual
understanding at a higher level (e.g., the focal student will ask the teacher: “Please
go and bring me 3 towers of 4.” “How many cubes will you have in all?”). Towards
the end of the teaching experiment, students were introduced to Conceptual Model-
based Problem Solving (COMPS, Xin, 2012) using a single model equation (i.e., Unit
Rate x # of Units = Product [Xin, 2012]) to solve a range of multiplication and divi-
sion problems. The teaching videos recorded the teacher and focal students. A gradu-
ate student who was enrolled in the School Counseling program took the field notes.

Intervention
The PGBM-COMPS is an evidence-based intervention (Xin et al., 2017)
based on the Indiana State Math Standards of 2006 for grade 5; the target grade
level for the intervention (Indiana Department of Education, 2006). As shown in
Table 2, the math intervention focused on math computation and algebraic rea-
soning. Although algebraic reasoning was not articulated in the 2006 math stan-
dards, it is represented in the current Indiana math standards and was incorporat-
ed into the PGBM-COMPS intervention (Indiana Department of Education, 2014).

Data Analysis
We coded the discourse among the instructor and both the dually classified
EL with LD and a native English speaker with LD with regard to problem solving
and reasoning, as well as how they appropriated language to convey their reasoning.
The discourse moves were coded into four types of scaffoldings: visual/graphic
scaffolding, linguistic scaffolding, interactive scaffolding, and kinesthetic scaffolding.
The purpose of this coding method was to answer the first research question: What
types of scaffolds do teachers and dually classified ELs make in multiplicative reasoning
during instruction and assessment activities?
Coding scheme of discourse moves. Using NVivo 11 (QSR International
Pty Ltd., 2017), the verbal and nonverbal mathematical communication, as well
as their behavior (e.g., using finger counting, creating the mathematical model on
scratch paper), was coded for the teacher and the pair of students (Xin et al., 2016).
Any unrelated mathematical verbal or nonverbal communication or behavior was
not coded as it was not central to the inquiry.
131
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

Table 2. Indiana Fifth-Grade Math Standards (2006, 2014)

2006 Indiana 5th grade math 2014 Indiana 5th grade math PGBM-COMPS
standards standards intervention
5.2.1: Solve problems 5.C.1: Multiply multi-digit 2006: yes
involving multiplication whole numbers fluently 2014: yes
and division of any whole using a standard algorithmic
numbers. approach.
Example: 2,867 x 34 = ?. COMPUTATION
Explain your method.
COMPUTATION
5.2.3: Use models to 5.C.3: Compare the size of 2006: yes
show an understanding of a product to the size of one 2014: yes
multiplication and division of factor on the basis of the size
fractions. of the other factor, without
Example: Draw a rectangle performing the indicated
5 squares wide and 3 squares multiplication.
high. Shade 4/5 of the
rectangle, starting from the COMPUTATION
left. Shade 2/3 of the rectangle,
starting from the top. Look
at the fraction of the squares
that you have double-shaded
and use that to show how to
multiply 4/5 by 2/3.
COMPUTATION
5.2.6: Use estimation to 2006: yes
decide whether answers
are reasonable in addition,
subtraction, multiplication, and
division problems.
Example: Your friend says that
2,867 x 34 = 20,069. Without
solving, explain why you think
the answer is wrong.
COMPUTATION
5.AT.1: Solve real-world 2014: yes
problems involving
multiplication and division
of whole numbers (e.g. by
using equations to represent
the problem). In division
problems that involve a
remainder, explain how the
remainder affects the solution
to the problem.
ALGEBRAIC

132
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

A scaffolding coding scheme documented two interrelated areas: (a) what

the teacher stated and what scaffold he applied while instructing the target math
content; and (b) what the students stated in response to math instruction and what
scaffold they appropriated. Table 3 illustrates the coding scheme with examples from
both the teacher’s and the target student’s discourse moves.
Moreover, in order to analyze the linguistic scaffold, we adopted the
concordance software AntConc 3.4.3w (Anthony, 2014). AntConc is a useful tool
for analyzing a detailed corpus in linguistic research (Lei, 2016). After obtaining
the organized discourse coding transcripts from Nvivo, we imported them into
AntConc to analyze the frequency of the teacher’s language in session transcripts by
counting the four categories, such as “How many towers?” “How many cubes?” “How
many more?” and “PGBM” (Please Go and Bring Me), that were the major activities
involved in the constructivist-oriented teaching experiment for students’ learning of
multiplicative reasoning and problem solving (Xin et al., 2008).

Table 3. Scaffolding and Coding Scheme

Scaffolds Teacher Students

Visual/Graphic “Please generate a model of 5 towers of “Can I use paper to draw a
Scaffold 9 on the grid ½ sheet.” model for this situation?”
Interactive The teacher helps E with the arithmetic The teacher asked L to help
Scaffold and shows her the error she made; now E, and she does. L counts
E has 45. towers for E until L shows 5
with her hand.
Linguistic T: How many cubes do you already L: How many cubes in each
Scaffold know are in a tower? tower?
L: 6. E: 5.
T: How many towers in all? L: How many towers?
E: 5. E: 6.
Kinesthetic “Use my fingers to keep track of it. And “I counted with my fingers.”
Scaffold we can use our fingers if it is helpful.
Here it is very helpful because you can
keep track how many groups you have.”

In addition, we defined the interactive scaffolds by three characteristics of

interaction: teacher-student interaction, student-student interaction and small group
interaction (see Table 4).

133
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

Table 4. Interactive Scaffolds

Teacher-student interaction Student-student interaction Small-group interaction

The teacher helps E with the The teacher asks L to help T: How many cubes in
arithmetic and shows her the E, and she does. L counts all?
error she made; now E has 45. towers for E until L shows 5 E: 28.
with her hand. T: OK. What did you get
on the calculator? (to L)
L: 44 (with calculator).

Limitation
In addition to this special intervention, the school also used two programs
for fifth-grade math. First, Math in Focus, a program framed within the Singapore
approach, focuses on developing students’ conceptual understanding and problem
solving (Jaciw et al., 2016). Second, enVisionMath, which is reflective of the Common
Core State Standards, and focuses on understanding math concepts through visual
instruction and small-group interaction on reasoning and modeling (Charles et al.,
2012). This instructional content taught during the school day is a possible variable
that might have influenced how students engaged with the PGBM-COMPS interven-
tion in the after-school sessions.

Results
In the first stage of analysis, we report the frequency results for the scaffolds
used by the teacher and appropriated by the EL, Eliza. Figure 2 presents the frequency
counts of the scaffolds for the focal EL and the intervention teacher. As shown, the
highest frequency of scaffolds used by the student and the teacher were kinesthetic
scaffolds, while the second-highest was interactive scaffolds. The teacher used finger
counting to help students do multiplication to solve the different types of problems,
such as unit rate (UR) (e.g., “how many cubes in each tower”); composite units (CU)
(e.g., “how many towers”); and 1’s (e.g., “how many cubes in all”) (Tzur et al., 2010).
Students also often used finger counting for multiplication with numbers. Below is
an exchange between Eliza (E) and teacher (T).
Excerpt 1 (December 11)
T: Make 8 towers of 7. (Writes it down on the paper. Covers the towers
with paper.)
T: Create a model for this situation. Try to solve it without drawing or
writing anything down. If you cannot do it, you can write things down.
Discuss with each other.
E: 7 plus 7 equals 14 for 2 towers. (Finger counting; counts up to 21. She
tries to keep track with her fingers and wanted to be at 7 fingers when
she had her answer.)
T: (prompt) Write down the number of cubes you got. Do you want to use
my fingers?
E: Yes. (Counts the towers, 28, 35, 42, …)
T: (Explains the number counting method to E using his fingers. E counts
and T keeps track of the towers with his fingers – 1 tower of 7.)

134
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

Figure 2. Frequency of scaffolds across students and the teacher.

As shown in this example, the teacher prompted Eliza to use both her
fingers and the teacher’s fingers to solve the problem. In this situation, the interaction
between the teacher and the student facilitated understanding. In the interaction, the
teacher employed the finger counting method to teach multiplicative reasoning.
Figure 3 shows the different types of interactions that the teacher and
students used cumulatively for all sessions. As illustrated, during this teaching event,
three areas were used: (a) small-group interaction, which involved interaction
among the teacher, Leslie, and Eliza; (b) student-student interaction, which included
interactions between students, Leslie and Eliza; and (c) teacher-student interaction
between teacher and one student (Leslie or Eliza).
Findings showed that the teacher used more small-group interactions,
whereas the students had more interactions during group work with both their
classmate and the teacher. For example, the following excerpt is from a transcript
between the teacher (T) and students Eliza (E) and Leslie (L).
Excerpt 2 (February 17)
T: Question number one.
L: How many cubes in each tower?
E: 5.
L: How many towers?
E: Six.
T: Six what?
E: Six towers.
L: How many cubes ... in each?
E: 5.
L: How many in all?
T: How many what?
L: How many towers in all?
E: Six.
T: I think the question you’re looking for is how many cubes in all
Can you ask it?
L: How many cubes in all?
E: 30.
135
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

Figure 3. Frequency of scaffolding used by interaction types.

The above interaction shows that the EL, Eliza, answered the native Eng-
lish speaker using different types of questions (Unit Rate [UR] and Composite Unit
[CU]) in an interactive way to help each other understand the three basic elements
(i.e., “UR, # of Units, and Product,” Xin, 2012) in elementary multiplicative problem
solving. The teacher was involved in the student-student interaction to ensure their
linguistic usage was accurate and to check their understanding (such as “how many
what?”).
Using AntConc, the teacher’s language in the session transcripts was found
to contain the phrase “how many?” 111 times; “how many towers?” was used 18
times; and “how many cubes?” was used 37 times. Another keyword that the teacher
frequently used was “PGBM,” or “Please Go and Bring Me,” which referred the main
student task of the turn-taking platform game PGBM used in the study (Xin et al.,
2008). The authors created this game, using a simple language to name it and to
make it linguistically accessible for dually classified English learners (e.g., the teacher
used statements such as “PGBM a tower of 11,” “PGBM 6 cubes” in his instructions).
Figure 4 shows the frequency of the language used by the teacher. As illustrated, the
teacher used the term “PGBM” most often.

Figure 4. Frequency of language used by the teacher.

136
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

In the last stage of analysis, the frequency of scaffold usage by the teacher
across all seven sessions was analyzed. As shown in Figure 5, during the first session,
the most common scaffold used was kinesthetic, but its use was gradually reduced in
the following sessions. This change indicates that in the beginning stage, the teacher
used more concrete and/or physical scaffolds to support students’ construction of a
concept. For example, he often used finger counting to help students keep track of
the two-unit types involved (1s and composite units larger than 1) as a way to answer
questions about the unit rate (UR) (e.g., “How many cubes in each tower?”), number
of units (e.g., “How many towers?”), and the product or total number of items (e.g.,
“How many cubes in all?”) (Tzur et al., 2010; Xin, 2012). Students in these sessions
often used finger counting to keep track of multiplicative operations on numbers.
But after four sessions, linguistic scaffolds were used more frequently. These
shifts reflect that as students acquired more knowledge, the teacher shifted to more
abstract approaches.

Figure 5. Frequency of scaffolds used by the teacher across sessions.

Figure 6. Frequency of scaffolds used by the student across sessions.

137
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

Figure 6 shows the frequency of the scaffolds used by students across all
seven sessions. Comparison with Figure 5 shows that in the first five sessions, the
frequency of linguistic scaffolds students appropriated is lower than that of the
teacher. An explanation for the difference may be that students’ construction
and appropriation of linguistic scaffolds were delayed in relation to the teacher’s
instruction, as the teacher’s instructional levels switched from concrete to abstract.
However, by the sixth session, students were able to catch up with the abstract level.
Below is an exchange among Eliza (E), Leslie (L), and the teacher (T).
Excerpt 3 (December 11)
T: (Sets out some cubes on the table.) How about we all do 7 towers
of 4?
(Students and teacher work separately; Eliza made 3 towers of 4, the
teacher put them together.)
T: (Writes on a piece of paper that covers those towers “7 towers of 4,”
and gives a piece of paper to L and E.)
T: Make a model of 7 towers of 4.
T: How many cubes do we have in all?
E & L: (Count on their fingers, then respond.) 28.
T to E: How did you get that?
E: (Demonstrates double-counting on her fingers.) 4, 8, 12, until 28.
L: Each tower has 4.
As shown in this example, during session One, the teacher used a linguistic
scaffold (“How many cubes ...?”) while covering the towers and let students try to
figure out the answer without any concrete objects available. However, at this stage,
the students did not seem to have sufficient abstract ability to solve the problem, as
indicated by their use of fingers (kinesthetic scaffold) to count numbers. Accordingly,
the teacher followed by using kinesthetic scaffolds in the first four sessions to
facilitate students’ gradual transfer to a more abstract level of thinking when solving
multiplicative problems. This also met the requirements of linguistic scaffolds
(abstract level).
Discussion
The teacher in this study used interactive, linguistic, visual/graphic, and kin-
esthetic scaffolds in multiplicative reasoning to scaffold instruction for the dually
classified EL, Eliza. Among these, the kinesthetic scaffold was the most frequently
used. Specifically, the teacher used finger counting to show the student how to solve
composite units (CU) and unit rates (UR). Interactive scaffolding, divided into three
types: student-student, teacher-student, and small-group interaction, was used with
the second-highest frequency.
The results show that small-group interaction was the most effective and
useful interaction among the students and the teacher. That is, Eliza, the dually
classified EL, performed best in small-group interactions where she demonstrated a
greater willingness and capacity to think and answer multiplicative problems.
When the teacher taught multiplicative reasoning to Eliza, he frequently
used simple phrases such as “how many?” and “PGBM.” It seems that his repeated
use of these simple phrases, and having students repeatedly use simple phrases such

138
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

as “how many?,” served as a linguistic scaffolding to help the student understand

the three elements (unit rate, # of units, and product; Xin, 2012) in multiplicative
reasoning of equal-group problem solving. In addition, “PGBM” characterizes the
platform game used, which also benefits ELs to get directions promptly and attend to
the target content of multiplicative reasoning.
As illustrated, the four scaffolds in classroom discourse that the teacher
frequently used with students influenced the multiplicative reasoning of the EL
with learning disabilities and improved mathematical problem-solving achievement
(Xin et al., 2017). Kinesthetic scaffolding is the most direct approach to helping
dually classified ELs solve multiplicative problems, as evidenced by the density and
frequency of use by the teacher and the dually classified EL, Eliza. However, in order
to better serve dually classified ELs, especially in the classroom environment, teachers
could focus on better linguistic scaffolding use within small-group interactions.
The findings from this study demonstrate three new areas of significance
for the fields of special education, English learning, and bilingual education. First,
kinesthetic scaffolds are best paired with multiplicative reasoning – math content that
is computational but also involves conceptual reasoning. Second, the use of scaffolds
ensures that dually classified ELs receive input in a way they can understand, thereby
allowing differentiated ways for ELs to express their math comprehension. Third, the
scaffolds used by the instructor within the PGBM-COMPS math intervention are
well suited for the content area of math. Each of these findings will be discussed in
more detail below.

Kinesthetic + Multiplicative Reasoning Equals Greater Student Comprehension

and Expression
Visual scaffolds are the most commonly used scaffold with ELs (Walqui,
2010; Walqui & vanLier, 2010). This type of scaffold is easily accessible to teachers;
thus, any related content or concept can be matched with a well-selected picture or
photo. The use of visual scaffolds is often included in ELs’ Individual Learning Plans
(similar to an IEP within special education), and as a result, teachers use this type of
scaffold as a means of adhering to the EL accommodations. However, although a vi-
sual scaffold may provide some access for dually classified ELs, it cannot stand alone.
In this study, multiple scaffolds, particularly kinesthetic ones, were used
simultaneously or consecutively in combination with intentionally composed
language. This crafted approach creates intra-scaffold support, whereby no one
scaffold stands on its own. All scaffolds are related to the content, the related math skills,
with an aim of comprehension and thereby, student expression or comprehension.
As illustrated, Eliza, the dually classified EL, adopted the teacher’s scaffolds and used
them not just to reproduce what the teacher stated, but to show, act out, state, and
perform multiplicative reasoning.

Comprehensible Input Paired With Opportunities for Comprehensible Output

When ELs are taught in a language over which they do not have full mastery,
it is important to take into consideration how input (instruction) and output (student
production) are understood and expressed. Often, the input that dually classified ELs
receive is only partially understood due to their level of language proficiency; as a

139
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

result, their production of that limited comprehension is a reflection of the original

incomplete input (instruction). By expanding the ways in which dually classified ELs
experience scaffolded instruction along with student-to-student interaction, their
comprehension improves as does the outcome in terms of math comprehension
and related academic language. Put simply, math and language are experienced and
expressed concurrently when scaffolds are carefully conceptualized and crafted.

Kinesthetic + Other Scaffolds Are Well Suited for Mathematics Content

Math content and related standards lend themselves to the use of a particular
type of scaffold; namely, kinesthetic. Because manipulatives or realia were used by the
instructor and students and Eliza regularly used finger counting, as expected, our
findings showed the impact on Eliza’s comprehension and her appropriation of math
content and its related language features.

Conclusion and Scholarly Significance

This study provides support for the position that if teachers intersect
kinesthetic, linguistic, and visual scaffolds, they can help dually classified ELs
to learn relevant content area knowledge while also learning English as it is used
within, in this case, mathematical discourse. This way, scaffolding instruction can
make English learning and content learning happen concurrently, leading to a model
of enrichment instruction vs. remedial instruction. In addition, scaffolding fosters
teachers’ attention to and awareness of their teaching practices, thereby benefiting
dually classified ELs in mathematics.
Few studies have been conducted on instructional interventions for dually
classified ELs in the fields of the EL and special education, leading to uncertainty
about which interventions concurrently incorporate the content, language and
specific strategies needed by these students. As both fields have a distinct repertoire
of instructional provisions proven to be effective, collaboration is essential for truly
understanding the role of these provisions for each field. As illustrated in this study,
the use of scaffolds, long used in special education and newly incorporated into EL
education, is a shared pivot point from where decisions can be developed for better
instruction for ELs with LD.

References
Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C. H., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language
learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational
Research, 74, 1–28. doi:10.3102/00346543074001001
Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (3.4.3w) [Computer software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.
Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority
disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts.
Exceptional Children, 71, 282–300. doi:10. 1177/001440290507100305
Asher, J. J. (1969). The total physical response approach to second language learning. The
Modern Language Journal, 53, 3–17. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1969.tb04552.x

140
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

Association for Supervision and Development & Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(2014). Whole school, whole community, whole child: A collaborative approach to
learning and health. Retrieved from https://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/
publications/wholechild/wscc-a-collaborative-approach.pdf
August, D., Spencer, S., Fenner, D. S., & Kozik, P. (2012). The evaluation of educators in effective
schools and classrooms for all learners. Washington, DC: American Federation of
Teachers.
Bishop, J. P., & Whitacre, I. (2010). Intellectual work: The depth of mathematical discourse
and its relationship to student learning. In P. Brosnan, D. B. Erchick, & L. Flevares
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of
the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 401–409).
Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Bradley, B. A., & Reinking, D. (2011). A formative experiment to enhance teacher-child
language interactions in a preschool classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy,
11, 362–401. doi:10.1177/1468798411410802
Brand, T., S., Favazza, A. E., & Dalton, E. M. (2012). Universal design for learning: A blueprint
for success for all learners. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48, 134–139. doi:10.1080/002289
58.2012.707506
Brown, J. E., & Ault, P. C. (2015). Disentangling language differences from disability: A case
study of district-preservice collaboration. Journal of Multilingual Education Research,
6, 111–136.
Carrasquillo, A., & Rodrigues, V. (2002). Language minority students in the mainstream
classroom. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853595660
Charles, R. I., Caldwell, J. H., Cavanagh, M., Copley, J., Crown, W., Fennell, F., . . . Tate, W.
(2012). enVisionMath: Common core edition. Glenview, IL: Pearson Education.
Chiu, C. W., & Pearson, P. D. (1999). Synthesizing the effects of test accommodations for spe-
cial education and limited English proficient students. Paper presented at the National
Conference on Large Scale Assessment, Snowbird, UT.
Collier, C. (2011). Seven steps to separating difference from disability. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin. doi:10.4135/9781452219424
de Araujo, Z., Roberts, S. A., Willey, C., & Zahner, W. (2018). English learners in K–12
mathematics education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research,
88, 879–919. doi:10.3102/0034654318798093
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-195, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2015).
Gee, J. (2015). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (5th ed.). London, UK:
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315722511
Gerena, L., & Keiler, L. (2012). Effective intervention with urban secondary English language
learners: How peer instructors support learning. Bilingual Research Journal, 35, 76–
97. doi:10.1080/15235882.2012.667372
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners
in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a
content‐based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 247–273. doi:10.2307/3588504
Gibbons, P. (2008). “It was taught good and I learned a lot”: Intellectual practices and ESL
learners in the middle years. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31, 155–173.
Gibbons, P. (2014). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learners
in the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Gottlieb, M. (2012). Essential actions: A handbook for implementing WIDA’s framework for
English language development standards. Madison, WI: WiDA Consortium.

141
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

Gottlieb, M. (2013). Essential actions: A handbook for implementing WIDA’s framework for
English language development standards. Madison, WI: WiDA Consortium.
Gottlieb, M. (2016). Assessing English language learners: Bridges to educational equity: Connecting
academic language proficiency to student achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Gunning, T. G. (2010). Creating literacy instruction for all students. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Indiana Department of Education. (2006). Indiana math standards. Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20101007024333/http://dc.doe.in.gov/Standards/
AcademicStandards/PrintLibrary/docs-math/2006-math-grade05.pdf
Indiana Department of Education. (2014). Indiana math standards. Retrieved from https://www.
doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/standards/2014-07-21-math-g5-architecturewith-
front-matterbr.pdf
Jaciw, A. P., Hegseth, W. M., Lin, L., Toby, M., Newman, D., Ma, B., & Zacamy, J. (2016).
Assessing impacts of math in focus, a “Singapore math” program. Journal of Research
on Educational Effectiveness, 9, 473–502. doi:10.1080/19345747.2016.1164777
Kangas, S.E.N. (2014). When special education trumps ESL: An investigation of service
delivery for ELLs with disabilities. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 11, 273–306.
doi:10.3102/0002831214544716
Kangas, S.E.N. (2017). “That’s where the rubber meets the road”: The intersection of special
education and bilingual education. Teachers College Record, 119, 1–36.
Kangas, S.E.N. (2019). English learners with disabilities: Linguistic development and
educational equity in jeopardy. In X. Gao (Eds.), Second handbook of English language
teaching. Springer international handbooks of education. New York, NY: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58542-0_48-1
Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Barletta, L. M. (2006). English language learners who struggle
with reading: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 108–
128. doi:10.1177/00222194060390020101
Krashen, S. (1998). Bridging inequity with books. Educational Leadership, 55, 18–22.
Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in
relation to next generation science standards and with implications for Common
Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational
Researcher, 42, 223–233. doi:10.3102/0013189X13480524
Lei, Q. (2016). A research of English article errors in writings by Chinese ESL learners. Teach-
ing Together, Learning Together: English Language Teaching Ideas, 1, 65-75. Retrieved
from http://www.klis.pf.ukf.sk/public/B.%20Horv%C3%A1thov%C3%A1,%20
J.%20Puschenreiterov%C3%A1%20-%20Teaching%20Together,%20Learning%20
Together.pdf
Lei, Q., Xin, Y. P., Morita-Mullaney, T., & Tzur, R. (2018). Analyzing a discourse of scaffolds for
mathematics instruction for an ELL with learning disabilities. In T. E. Hodges, G. J.
Roy, & A. M. Tyminski (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the North
American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Educa-
tion (pp. 460–467). Greenville, SC: University of South Carolina & Clemson Univer-
sity. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-
live&db=eue&AN=133248617
Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Faller, S. E., & Kelley, J. G. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of
implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse
students in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 196–228.
doi:10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3

142
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

Linquanti, R., & Cook, H. G. (2015). Re-examining reclassification: Guidance from a national
working session on policies and practices for exiting students from English learner status.
Retrieved from https://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1447810235-
resourcereexaminingreclassificationguidancefromanationalworkingsessiononpolici
esandpracticesforexitingstudentsfromenglishlearnerstatus-3.pdf
McCloskey, M. L. (2005). Visual scaffolding to support ELL reading. Keeping the Promise, 1–7.
McGhee, B.M.D. (2011). Profiles of elementary-age English language learners with reading-
related learning disabilities (LD) identified as speech and language impaired prior to,
at, or after identification as LD (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global (1432171790).
More, C. M., Spies, T. G., Morgan, J. J., & Baker, J. N. (2016). Incorporating English language
learner instruction within special education teacher preparation. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 51, 229–237. doi:10.1177/1053451215589183
Morita-Mullaney, T., & Singh, M. (2019). Obscuring English learners from state accountability:
The case of Indiana’s language blind policies. Educational Policy, 1–25.
doi:10.1177/0895904818823751
Morita-Mullaney, T., & Stallings, L. (2018). Serving Indiana’s emergent bilingual immigrant
(EBI) youth: A collective case study of EBI teacher educators. The Teacher
Educator, 53, 293–312. doi:10.1080/08878730.2018.1462422
Moschkovich, J. N. (2015). Scaffolding student participation in mathematical practices. ZDM:
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47, 1067–1078. doi:10.1007/s11858-
015-0730-3
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). NAEP data explorer. Retrieved from https://
nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017144.pdf.
Non-Regulatory Guidance. (2016). English learners and Title III of the elementary and second-
ary education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Re-
trieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essatitleiiiguidenglishlearn-
ers92016.pdf
Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity
for California’s long term English language learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians
Together.
QSR International Pty Ltd. (2017). NVivo qualitative data analysis software (Version 11).
Sáenz, L. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for English
language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 231–247.
doi:10.1177/001440290507100302
Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring
language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners – A report to
Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Shyyan, V., Thurlow, M. L., & Liu, K. K. (2006). Instructional strategies for improving achievement
in reading, mathematics, and science for English language learners with disabilities.
Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 145–155. doi:10.1177/1534508407313239
Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Interaction or intersubjectivity? A reply to Lerman. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 191–209. doi:10.2307/749751
Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities.
Journal of learning disabilities, 31, 344–364. doi:10.1177/002221949803100404
Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and
placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77, 317–334.
doi:10.1177/001440291107700304
TestPrep-Online. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.testprep-online.com/olsat-scores.

143
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 18(1), 123-144, 2020

Torres-Velasquez, D., & Rodriguez, D. (2005). Improving mathematics problem solving skills for
English language learners with learning disabilities. Tampa, FL: University of South
Florida, Project LASER.
Tracey, D., & Morrow, L. M. (2012). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and models.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Tzur, R., Johnson, H. L., McClintock, E., Kenney, R. H., Xin, Y. P., Si, L., ... & Jin, X. (2013).
Distinguishing schemes and tasks in children’s development of multiplicative
reasoning. PNA, 7, 85–101.
Tzur, R., Xin, Y. P., Si, L., Kenney, R., & Guebert, A. (2010). Students with learning disability in
math are left behind in multiplicative reasoning? Number as abstract composite unit is
a likely “culprit.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Denver, CO.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Studies in communication. Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G.
Vakar, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:10.1037/11193-000
Walqui, A. (2010). Principles of quality teaching for English learners. In A. Walqui & L. vanLier
(Eds.), Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners (pp.
80–85). San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Walqui, A., & vanLier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language
learners: A pedagogy of promise. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Watkins, E., & Liu, K. K. (2013). Who are English language learners with disabilities. Impact:
Feature issue on educating K-12 English language learners with disabilities, 26, 2–3.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
child psychology and psychiatry, 17, 89–100. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Xin, Y. P. (2012). Conceptual model-based problem solving: Teach students with learning difficul-
ties to solve math problems. Leiden: Brill | Sense. doi:10.1007/978- 94-6209-104-7_1
Xin, Y. P., Liu, J., Jones, S. R., Tzur, R., & Si, L. (2016). A preliminary discourse analysis of
constructivist-oriented mathematics instruction for a student with learning
disabilities. The Journal of Educational Research, 109, 436–447. doi:10.1080/0022
0671.2014.979910
Xin, Y. P., Tzur, R., & Si, L. (2008). Nurturing multiplicative reasoning in students with learning
disabilities in a computerized conceptual-modeling environment (National Science
Foundation Funded Project). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Xin, Y. P., Tzur, R., Hord, C., Liu, J., Park, J. Y., & Si, L. (2017). An intelligent tutor-assisted
mathematics intervention program for students with learning difficulties. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 40, 4–16. doi:10.1177/0731948716648740
Yin, K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the administrators, teachers, staff, as well as
students at Lafayette School Cooperation. We would also like to thank many graduate
students at Purdue University for their assistance, including taking the field notes of
the teaching experiment.

144