Volume 3, Issue 4 (December 2021)                   Iranian Evolutionary and Educational Psychology 2021, 3(4): 395-418 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Soleymani Khashab A, Dortaj F, Sadipour E, Delavar A, Sheivandi K. (2021). Comparison of The Effectiveness of the Educational Package of Cognitive-Metacognitive Strategies and Cognitive Intervention in Solving the Mathematical Verbal Problem and Cognitive Functions in Students with Special Math Learning Disabilities. Iranian Evolutionary and Educational Psychology. 3(4), 395-418. doi:10.52547/ieepj.3.4.395
URL: http://ieepj.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-214-en.html
1- Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty Of Psychology And Educational Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (3198 Views)
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the educational package of cognitive-metacognitive strategies and cognitive intervention in solving the mathematical verbal problem and cognitive functions in students with special math learning disabilities. The design of the present study was a pretest-posttest with a control group. The statistical population of the study consisted of all fourth grade elementary students with special learning disabilities in Bahmaei city, Iran in 2020. From this population, 16 people were selected as the research sample by purposive sampling. The training package was presented in the form of 9 sessions of 45 minutes. Content validation was used to validate the training package. The research instruments were a researcher-made questionnaire for solving mathematical verbal problem, Wechsler scale index version 5 and Key Math scale. Research hypotheses were tested by repeated measures analysis of variance. The results indicated that the educational package and cognitive intervention could significantly increase cognitive functions and mathematical verbal problem solving in students with special math learning disabilities (p < .01). Comparison of means of post-test and follow-up in the variables of mathematical verbal problem solving (MD = 0.31, p < .52,), planning (MD = 0.13, p = .99), concurrent processing (MD = 0.38, p <0.49) and sequence processing (MD = 0.25, p <0.12) showed that there was no significant change in dependent variables after two months. Explaining this result, it can be said that the training package has been effective in the long time. On the other hand, teaching cognitive-metacognitive strategies compared to cognitive intervention had a greater effect on the variables of mathematical verbal problem solving (t = 3.12, p < .01) and simultaneous processing (t = 3.22, p <.01). Accordingly, the teaching of cognitive-metacognitive strategies can be used to improve cognitive functions and verbal problem solving in students with special math learning disabilities.
Full-Text [PDF 707 kb]   (484 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original | Subject: Educational Psychology
Received: 2020/08/19 | Accepted: 2021/01/2 | Published: 2021/12/1

1. Anderson, J. R., Betts, S., Ferris, J. L., & Fincham, J. M. (2011). Cognitive and metacognitive activity in mathematical problem solving: prefrontal and parietal patterns. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 11(1), 52-67. [DOI:10.3758/s13415-010-0011-0]
2. Andersson, U. (2010). Skill development in different components of arithmetic and basic cognitive functions: Findings from a 3-year longitudinal study of children with different types of learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 115. [DOI:10.1037/a0016838]
3. Arsalidou, M., & Taylor, M. J. (2011). Is 2+ 2= 4? Meta-analyses of brain areas needed for numbers and calculations. Neuroimage, 54(3), 2382-2393. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.009]
4. Baird, B., Smallwood, J., Gorgolewski, K. J., & Margulies, D. S. (2013). Medial and lateral networks in anterior prefrontal cortex support metacognitive ability for memory and perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(42), 16657-16665. [DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0786-13.2013]
5. Berkeley, S., & Larsen, A. (2018). Fostering Self‐Regulation of Students with Learning Disabilities: Insights from 30 Years of Reading Comprehension Intervention Research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(2), 75-86. [DOI:10.1111/ldrp.12165]
6. Bonifacci, P., Tobia, V., Marra, V., Desideri, L., Baiocco, R., & Ottaviani, C. (2020). Rumination and Emotional Profile in Children with Specific Learning Disorders and Their Parents. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(2), 389. [DOI:10.3390/ijerph17020389]
7. Cicerone, K. D., Langenbahn, D. M., Braden, C., Malec, J. F., Kalmar, K., Fraas, M., . . . Bergquist, T. (2011). Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: updated review of the literature from 2003 through 2008. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 92(4), 519-530. [DOI:10.1016/j.apmr.2010.11.015]
8. Coltman, S. K., Cashaback, J. G., & Gribble, P. L. (2019). Both fast and slow learning processes contribute to savings following sensorimotor adaptation. Journal of neurophysiology, 121(4), 1575-1583. [DOI:10.1152/jn.00794.2018]
9. Connolly, A. J. (1988). KeyMath Revised: A Diagnostic Inventory of Essential Mathematics: Manual, Forms A and B: American Guidance Service.
10. Cormier, D. C., Kennedy, K. E., & Aquilina, A. M. (2016). Test Review: Wechsler, D.(2014)," Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: Canadian 322 (WISC-V CDN)." Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Assessment. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 31(4), 322-334. [DOI:10.1177/0829573516648941]
11. Culaste, I. C. (2011). Cognitive skills of mathematical problem solving of grade 6 children. International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research, 1(1), 120-125.
12. Das, A., Misra, P., & Kukreja, L. (2009). Effect of Si doping on electrical and optical properties of ZnO thin films grown by sequential pulsed laser deposition. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 42(16), 165405. [DOI:10.1088/0022-3727/42/16/165405]
13. Desoete, A., & De Craene, B. (2019). Metacognition and mathematics education: An overview. ZDM, 51(4), 565-575. [DOI:10.1007/s11858-019-01060-w]
14. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual review of psychology, 64, 135-168. [DOI:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750]
15. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906. [DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906]
16. Fletcher, J. M., & Miciak, J. (2017). Comprehensive cognitive assessments are not necessary for the identification and treatment of learning disabilities. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 32(1), 2-7. [DOI:10.1093/arclin/acw103]
17. Gascoine, L., Higgins, S., & Wall, K. (2017). The assessment of metacognition in children aged 4-16 years: a systematic review. Review of Education, 5(1), 3-57. [DOI:10.1002/rev3.3077]
18. Geary, D. C. (2011). Consequences, characteristics, and causes of mathematical learning disabilities and persistent low achievement in mathematics. Journal of developmental and behavioral pediatrics: JDBP, 32(3), 250. [DOI:10.1097/DBP.0b013e318209edef]
19. Ifenthaler, D., Eseryel, D., & Ge, X. (2012). Assessment for game-based learning. In Assessment in game-based learning (pp. 1-8): Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4614-3546-4]
20. Iglesias-Sarmiento, V., Deaño, M., Alfonso, S., & Conde, Á. (2017). Mathematical learning disabilities and attention deficit and/or hyperactivity disorder: A study of the cognitive processes involved in arithmetic problem solving. Research in developmental disabilities, 61, 44-54. [DOI:10.1016/j.ridd.2016.12.012]
21. Im, S.-h., & Jitendra, A. K. (2020). Analysis of proportional reasoning and misconceptions among students with mathematical learning disabilities. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 57, 100753. [DOI:10.1016/j.jmathb.2019.100753]
22. Jane, J. Y., Burnett, A. F., & Sit, C. H. (2018). Motor skill interventions in children with developmental coordination disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 99(10), 2076-2099. [DOI:10.1016/j.apmr.2017.12.009]
23. Krawec, J. L. (2014). Problem representation and mathematical problem solving of students of varying math ability. JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES, 47(2), 103-115. [DOI:10.1177/0022219412436976]
24. Kroesbergen, E. H., Van Luit, J. E., & Naglieri, J. A. (2003). Mathematical learning difficulties and PASS cognitive processes. JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES, 36(6), 574-582. [DOI:10.1177/00222194030360060801]
25. Ma, L., Du, X., Hau, K.-T., & Liu, J. (2018). The association between teacher-student relationship and academic achievement in Chinese EFL context: a serial multiple mediation model. Educational Psychology, 38(5), 687-707. [DOI:10.1080/01443410.2017.1412400]
26. Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C. (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of "far transfer" evidence from a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 512-534. [DOI:10.1177/1745691616635612]
27. Melin, P., Castillo, O., Kacprzyk, J., Reformat, M., & Melek, W. (2017). Fuzzy logic in intelligent system design: Theory and applications (Vol. 648): Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-67137-6]
28. Meltzer, A. H. (2010). A History of the Federal Reserve, Volume 1: University of Chicago Press. [DOI:10.7208/chicago/9780226519852.001.0001]
29. Meltzer, L. (2018). Executive function in education: From theory to practice: Guilford Publications.
30. Mesrabadi, J., & Alilou, A. (2016). The Effectiveness of Conceptual Map on Retention and Understanding and Application of Science Concepts. Educational Psychology, 12(40), 151-171. doi:10.22054/jep.2016.5564
31. Miri, A., & Maleki, B. (2014). The effect of teaching cognitive strategies on reducing learning disabilities in second and third grade male students. Journal of Educational Studies, 3(8), 115-127.
32. Mohammad Aria, A., Seifunraqi, M., Delavar, A., & Saadipour, I. (2012). The effect of teaching cognitive and cognitive-metacognitive strategies on problem-solving performance and adaptive behavior of students with intellectual disabilities. Exceptional People Quarterly, 2(8), 55-75.
33. Mohammadesmaeil, E., & Hooman, H. A. (2003). Adaptation and standardization of the IRAN KEY-MATH test of mathematics. Journal of Exceptional Children, 2(4), 323-332.
34. Montague, M., & Dietz, S. (2009). Evaluating the evidence base for cognitive strategy instruction and mathematical problem solving. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 285-302. [DOI:10.1177/001440290907500302]
35. Montague, M., Krawec, J., Enders, C., & Dietz, S. (2014). The effects of cognitive strategy instruction on math problem solving of middle-school students of varying ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 469. [DOI:10.1037/a0035176]
36. Mutlu, Y. (2019). Math Anxiety in Students with and without Math Learning Difficulties. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 11(5), 471-475. [DOI:10.26822/iejee.2019553343]
37. Naglieri, J. A. (1999). How valid is the PASS theory and CAS? School Psychology Review, 28(1), 145-162. [DOI:10.1080/02796015.1999.12085953]
38. Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1987). Construct and criterion-related validity of planning, simultaneous, and successive cognitive processing tasks. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5(4), 353-363. [DOI:10.1177/073428298700500405]
39. Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (2005). Planning, attention, simultaneous, successive (PASS) theory: A revision of the concept of intelligence.
40. Naglieri, J. A., & Otero, T. M. (2012). The Cognitive Assessment System: From theory to practice. In D. P. F. P. L. Harrison (Ed.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 376-399): Guilford Press.
41. Naglieri, J. A., & Rojahn, J. (2004). Construct validity of the pass theory and cas: correlations with achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 174. [DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.174]
42. Najarzadegan, M., Nejati, V., Amiri, N., & Sharifian, M. (2015). Effect of cognitive rehabilitation on executive function (working memory and attention) in children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. J Rehab Med, 4(2), 97-108.
43. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction, 1(2), 117-175. [DOI:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1]
44. Passolunghi, M. C. (2011). Cognitive and emotional factors in children with mathematical learning disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58(1), 61-73. [DOI:10.1080/1034912X.2011.547351]
45. Phonapichat, P., Wongwanich, S., & Sujiva, S. (2014). An analysis of elementary school students' difficulties in mathematical problem solving. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3169-3174. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.728]
46. Poushaneh, K., Sharifi, A., & Motamed-Yeganeh, N. (2015). The effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation computer based intervention on executive function and working memory in children with math disorder. Psychology of Exceptional Individuals, 5(20), 141-159.
47. Power, J. D., Cohen, A. L., Nelson, S. M., Wig, G. S., Barnes, K. A., Church, J. A., . . . Schlaggar, B. L. (2011). Functional network organization of the human brain. Neuron, 72(4), 665-678. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.09.006]
48. Royatvand, G. N., & Amiri, M. M. (2018). Effectiveness of Captain Log's cognitive software on working memory of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Exceptional Children Empowerment, 9(3), 5-15.
49. Schneider, J., & McGrew, K. (2012). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of intelligence v2. 2: a visual tour and summary. Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP), 1, 03-13.
50. Seif, A. (2011). Educational psychology:learning and teaching psychology. Tehran: Agah.
51. Stacy, S. T., Cartwright, M., Arwood, Z., Canfield, J. P., & Kloos, H. (2017). Addressing the math-practice gap in elementary school: Are tablets a feasible tool for informal math practice? Frontiers in psychology, 8, 179. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00179]
52. Sweller, J. (2016). Story of a research program. In J. D. F. S. Tobias, & D. C. Berliner (Ed.), Education Review (Vol. 23): Acquired wisdom series. [DOI:10.14507/er.v23.2025]
53. Taddei, S., & Contena, B. (2017). Cognitive processes in ADHD and Asperger's disorder: Overlaps and differences in PASS profiles. Journal of attention disorders, 21(13), 1087-1093. [DOI:10.1177/1087054713510350]
54. Tannock, R. (2013). Rethinking ADHD and LD in DSM-5: Proposed changes in diagnostic criteria. JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES, 46(1), 5-25. [DOI:10.1177/0022219412464341]
55. Treffers, A. (2019). Direct instruction and problem-solving: Critical examination of Cognitive Load Theory from the perspective of mathematics education. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 16(1), 607-620. [DOI:10.54870/1551-3440.1475]
56. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Socio-cultural theory. Mind in society, 6, 52-58.
57. Wang, X., Georgiou, G. K., & Das, J. (2012). Examining the effects of PASS cognitive processes on Chinese reading accuracy and fluency. Learning and individual Differences, 22(1), 139-143. [DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.006]
58. Weiss, L. G., Saklofske, D. H., Holdnack, J. A., & Prifitera, A. (2015). WISC-V assessment and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives: Academic Press. [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-404697-9.00001-7]
59. Yang, C. (2005). Learning strategy use of Chinese PhD students of social sciences in Australian universities. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Griffith University, Brisbane.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2023 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Iranian Evolutionary and Educational Psychology Journal

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb