Research-Based Strategies to Improve Math Instruction for Teachers and Outcomes for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Practitioner journals like Beyond Behavior play a critical role in translating research to practice for teaching professionals (Hott et al., 2018; Lastrapes & Mooney, 2021). Informing educators of researchor evidence-based academic, behavioral, and social-emotional practices is particularly important within the field of emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), given the poor outcomes of these students and the high turnover of professionals within the field. Using instructional practices that are supported by scientific rigor is viewed as legally, ethically, meaningfully, and logically a better choice to meet the educational needs of this population than use of nontested practices (Cook & Farley, 2019). In this first issue of Volume 31, an exceptional group of educational researchers highlight research-based practices that have a great likelihood of improving math teaching and learning for students with EBD. Before we preview the six articles that are included in this issue, we provide a two-part rationale for targeting math instruction for students with EBD. First, as indicated in each of the articles, the math achievement of students with EBD lags behind that of peers without disabilities as well as other students with disabilities. In 2004, Reid and colleagues compared achievement samples of students with EBD to students without EBD and reported that math outcomes were significantly lower for students with EBD. Epstein et al. (2005) characterized the delays as evident across age ranges, stable, and of a magnitude between one and two grade levels behind their peers. These findings necessitate direct efforts to address math underachievement in students with EBD. The co-existence of behavioral and math disabilities may make it more difficult for students to respond to intervention than students with either math or behavioral struggles, particularly for students with externalizing behaviors (Benz & Powell, 2021). These data make clear the understanding that high-quality mathematics intervention must simultaneously be employed with high-quality positive behavioral interventions and supports for students with EBD. Moreover, teacher quality in providing high-quality behavioral interventions and supports has been shown to correlate with student motivation to learn math and their math achievement (van Dijk et al., 2019). All of these findings necessitate direct efforts to address math underachievement in students with EBD. Second, and accepting the findings of Benz and Powell (2021), there is reason to be optimistic about the notion that implementing research-based math interventions can positively impact outcomes of students with EBD. Systematic reviews of teacher-, peer-, and student-directed intervention research in math for students with EBD have shown that direct intervention often results in student achievement gains (Dunn et al., 2017; Peltier et al., 2020, 2021). Across three reviews, the following practitioneroriented implications were offered by research team members: (a) be explicit when delivering interventions; (b) use all—teacher-, peer-, and student-directed—approaches in planning intervention; (c) incorporate manipulatives in the concrete-representational-abstract sequence of instruction in teacher-delivered interventions; and (d) match the intervention type to student needs and/or the stage of instruction in student-delivered interventions. As we transition from a rationale for the special series to brief descriptions of the articles within, let us express our appreciation to Dr. Corey Peltier for his willingness to recruit series authors and contribute himself. We also thank the other contributing authors. Readers can be excited about the fact that Dr. Peltier and the other authors are actively engaged in experimental inquiry to identify promising math improvement practices for students with EBD. In the opening article, Sarah Powell, Sarah Benz, Erica Mason, and Erica Lembke describe how to structure and intensify math interventions for students with EBD. The authors offer detailed guidance on a three-step process for individualizing interventions, involving (a) identifying critical math content and developing an appropriate scope and sequence; (b) designing the intervention with a common session structure; and (c) embedding and intensifying student supports by increasing dosage, focusing on alignment, and attending to transfer. In the second article, Margaret Flores and Vanessa Hinton explicitly describe how to incorporate the concreterepresentational-abstract sequence of instruction into programming for elementary school students. Through their detailed descriptions of teacher-directed lesson activities, methods, materials, procedures, and helpful hints, Flores and Hinton provide the reader with sufficient information to teach in a way that advances students’ conceptual understanding and mathematical thinking. 1072840 BBXXXX10.1177/10742956211072840Beyond Behavior research-article2022