THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 36/NO. 1/2002/PP. 23–38 23 The importance of mathematics literacy and problem solving has been emphasized by researchers (e.g., De Corte, Greer, & Verschaffel, 1996; Goldman, Hasselbring, & the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1997; Patton, Cronin, Bassett, & Koppel, 1997) and in national reports (e.g., National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000; National Education Goals Panel, 1997). Although instruction that em- phasizes reflective thinking and reasoning is considered by many to be critical to mathematics reform efforts (Baroody & Hume, 1991; Bottge, 1999; Hofmeister, 1993; Montague, 1997a), procedures that encourage memorization and the com- pletion of lengthy worksheets requiring rote practice are com- mon in many classrooms (Parmar & Cawley, 1991). Mathematics instruction in special education, particularly, has been characterized to a large extent by its emphasis on rote memorization of facts and computational skills, rather than on developing important concepts and applying mathematics to real-world problem situations (Baroody & Hume, 1991; Bottge, 1999; Parmar, Cawley, & Miller, 1994; Woodward & Montague, 2000). Many researchers argue that highly procedural instruc- tion (meaningless drill and practice of computation facts) may sustain the characterization of students with learning disabil- ities as passive learners and fail to fill the gaps in their con- ceptual understanding of the core concepts and principles underlying mathematical thinking (Baroody & Hume, 1991; Parmar et al., 1994; Torgesen, 1982; Woodward & Montague, 2000). It is not surprising, then, that many students with learn- ing disabilities have difficulty with higher level mathematics skills, such as solving word problems (Xin & Jitendra, 1999). Parmar, Cawley, and Frazita (1996) compared the perfor- mance of students with and without disabilities on arithmetic word problems involving all four operations and problems that contained direct or indirect statements, extraneous infor- mation, and one-step or two-step problems. Results indicated that the students with disabilities performed at significantly lower levels than the students without disabilities on all prob- lem types. The students with disabilities experienced consid- erable difficulty with problem representation or identifying relevant information, along with difficulties in reading, com- putation, and identifying operations. One plausible deficiency of traditional mathematics in- struction is its failure to make explicit the key aspects of do- main knowledge needed for problem solving. Emerging views An Exploratory Study of Schema-Based Word-Problem–Solving Instruction for Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities: An Emphasis on Conceptual and Procedural Understanding Asha Jitendra and Caroline M. DiPipi, Lehigh University Nora Perron-Jones, Salisbury School District This exploratory study extends the research on schema-based strategy instruction by investigating its effects on the mathematical problem solving of 4 middle school students with learning disabilities who were low-performing in mathematics. A multiple-probe-across-participants design included baseline, treatment, generalization, and maintenance. During treatment, students received schema strategy train- ing in problem schemata (conceptual understanding) and problem solution (procedural understanding). Results indicated that the schema-based strategy was effective in substantially increasing the number of correctly solved multiplication and division word problems for all 4 participants. Maintenance of strategy effects was evident for 10, 5 1 /2, and 2 1 /2 weeks following the termination of instruction for Sara, Tony, and Percy, respectively. In addition, the effects of instruction generalized to novel word problems for all 4 participants. Address: Asha Jitendra, Education and Human Services, Lehigh University, 315A Iacoca Hall, 111 Research Dr., Bethlehem, PA 18015-4794; e-mail: akj2@lehigh.edu