Mathematics Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of Instructional Components
Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. · 2009
grade Cmeta-analysisindependentmixednumbers spot-checked
Sample
42 intervention studies (RCT + QED)
Population
K-12 students with learning disabilities.
Design
Components coded; primary studies small with researcher-designed treatment-aligned measures.
Key findings
The most-cited quantification of explicit instruction for struggling math learners (g=1.22). Direction is the field's most replicated finding; magnitude is aligned-measure inflated — read against Gersten 2015's standardized +0.34 benchmark.
Genetic confound
Experimental base; LD samples are ability-selected — teachable-skill gains in low-performing populations.
Replication notes
Direction robust across independent metas + WWC 2021; the headline magnitude has never been reproduced on independent standardized outcomes (expect ~half).
DOI / URL
10.3102/0034654309334431
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explicit instruction component | g | 1.22 (range of study effects 0.08-2.15) | researcher-designed | end-of-treatment | unclear | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
| Teaching heuristics | g | 1.56 | researcher-designed | end-of-treatment | unclear | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
Cited by
- Explicit vs reform/constructivist math instructionmoderate supportconf: highgc: low