View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Supporting Dual Language Learners' Mathematical Development: Lessons Learned from a Systematic Literature Review

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Supporting Dual Language Learners' Mathematical Development: Lessons Learned from a Systematic Literature Review
Language: English
Authors: Cayla Lussier (ORCID 0000-0001-5627-5378), Madison Cook, Sarah Quinn (ORCID 0000-0002-7309-0110), Joanna Hermida, Manda Nambiar, Emily Wilke, Ben Clarke
Source: Psychology in the Schools. 2025 62(8):2398-2407.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Bilingual Students, Mathematics Education, Mathematics Skills, Skill Development, Educational Strategies, Elementary School Mathematics, Elementary School Students, Educational Research, Early Intervention, Mathematics Instruction
DOI: 10.1002/pits.23476
ISSN: 0033-3085
1520-6807
Abstract: With the number of students classified as Dual Language Learners (DLLs) in U.S. schools consistently increasing, it is important for educators to consider academic interventions that include evidence-based practices to support DLLs. Specifically in the field of mathematics, several strategies have been recommended to support DLLs' mathematical development. However, it is difficult to determine if mathematics intervention programs are utilizing these strategies effectively for DLLs. The purpose of the current review is to examine the current elementary mathematics intervention research base to determine relevant study and intervention characteristics within published research articles. Results demonstrate a lack of early mathematics intervention research articles that examine mathematics outcomes for DLLs. Additionally, results suggest that of the included articles, many early mathematics interventions include key strategies that support DLLs. Based on these findings, implications for future research and practice are further discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1477402
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFt4HxexDVO2duEiYJ-QPmEAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBJ7DqpvWoqJgwtBXAIBEICBmwRpMx8BXEW1qyVSw69bzT7C1dB8fUQ22bV45Uc5J8OriraVPRr29Pa91uPv-T_fIet5QrqtZvBWou5DDBVfs-gx44Qejr3ittua3EF1OUDVtVP_p0Hq2uZVrOcE2CverU91o9rFngQVFElfmo4XMcAhlL-nPS6hlQngubgzMcb9cE3FtVSjRpk3P6F3azspWYgnhE0fMFUwfAfI
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186727893;pis01aug.25;2025Jul21.06:39;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186727893-1">Supporting Dual Language Learners' Mathematical Development: Lessons Learned From a Systematic Literature Review </title> <p>With the number of students classified as Dual Language Learners (DLLs) in U.S. schools consistently increasing, it is important for educators to consider academic interventions that include evidence‐based practices to support DLLs. Specifically in the field of mathematics, several strategies have been recommended to support DLLs' mathematical development. However, it is difficult to determine if mathematics intervention programs are utilizing these strategies effectively for DLLs. The purpose of the current review is to examine the current elementary mathematics intervention research base to determine relevant study and intervention characteristics within published research articles. Results demonstrate a lack of early mathematics intervention research articles that examine mathematics outcomes for DLLs. Additionally, results suggest that of the included articles, many early mathematics interventions include key strategies that support DLLs. Based on these findings, implications for future research and practice are further discussed.</p> <p>Summary: There are limited studies of mathematics interventions that examine effects for dual language learners (DLLs).Future research on mathematics interventions for DLL students will need to include more detail regarding the school context and characteristics of students and interventionists.Educators may need to adapt and modify mathematics interventions to include key strategies for DLLs.</p> <p>Keywords: dual language learners; intervention; mathematics; systematic literature review</p> <p>In 2011, 9.4% of students were classified as English Learners (ELs) and by the fall of 2021 that percentage had grown to 10.6% of students or approximately 5.3 million students (National Center for Education Statistics [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref1">20</reflink>]). According to the National Education Association, it is projected that by 2025, 25% of students in U.S. public schools will be classified as ELs per the U.S. Department of Education ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref2">34</reflink>]). According to the Every Students Succeeds Act, the term "English Learner" refers to students aged 3–21, whose native language is not English, whose difficulties using English for speaking, reading, and writing may deny them the ability to meet state academic standards, fully participate in society, and successfully achieve in classrooms providing instruction in English (2015). Given that the term "English Learner" is a legal definition that does not include all multilingual students, students will be referred to as Dual Language Learners (DLLs) throughout this review to include students classified as ELs, students who previously qualified as ELs, and those who are multilingual but have not previously received EL services. DLLs include students that are concurrently learning multiple languages. According to Tao et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref3">33</reflink>]), bilingual individuals engage in continuous language control that influences cognitive skills and neural development. As a result, providing academic intervention that accounts for individual differences may prove to be more effective than standard intervention practices. As schools serve increasing numbers of DLLs, they are faced with not only supporting the development of English language skills but also the equally important goal of providing high quality content area instruction to growing numbers of students with varied linguistic and academic needs (Baker et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>]). It is important to consider the increasing numbers of DLLs considering current achievement levels in mathematics. In 2022, 25% of 4th grade students performed below the Basic level on the National Center for Education Progress mathematics assessment (NAEP [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref5">34</reflink>]). Comparatively, 48% of 4th grade students classified as English Learners performed below the <emph>Basic</emph> level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref6">34</reflink>]). The NAEP defines <emph>Basic</emph> level as "partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for performance at the <emph>NAEP Proficient</emph> level" (NAEP [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref7">34</reflink>]). For example, a 4th grade student at the <emph>Basic</emph> level can likely determine place value of whole numbers up to hundred thousands (NAEP [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref8">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given increasing numbers of DLLs in U.S. schools and the significant need for support for DLLs in mathematics, it is imperative that educators consider how best to provide evidence‐based academic support to enable DLLs to establish successful learning trajectories in mathematics. The aim of this review is to determine the scope of current intervention research conducted with DLLs at risk for mathematics difficulties with the goal of utilizing findings to inform future research and practice related to the design and delivery of mathematics intervention for DLL students. To do so, we review best practices for the systematic delivery of mathematics interventions, best practices for DLLs, and the scope of research that has been conducted to date with DLLs. Lastly, we conclude by making recommendations to move both research and educational practice forward.</p> <hd id="AN0186727893-2">Best Practices for Mathematics Interventions</hd> <p>Providing early intervention for students at risk for mathematics difficulties is critical for ensuring that students establish positive learning trajectories in mathematics throughout their academic careers. Multi‐tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) is an evidence‐based data driven framework used to identify students at risk for academic difficulties and prevent further difficulties through the delivery of high‐quality interventions (Fuchs et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref9">11</reflink>]). Throughout the last decade, the field has established support for evidence‐based practice for students at risk for difficulties in mathematics (Nelson and McMaster [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref10">22</reflink>]). Within the context of MTSS, DLLs at risk for difficulties in mathematics likely demonstrate need for support on screening and progress monitoring assessments. Through this framework, the Institute of Educational Sciences has indicated that elementary students at risk for difficulties in mathematics benefit from an array of evidenced‐based practices (Fuchs et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref11">11</reflink>]). The IES (Institute for Education Sciences) endorses use of interventions involving explicit and systematic instruction and use of "clear and concise" mathematical language, development of understanding of mathematical concepts using concrete (physical representations) and semi‐concrete (visual representations), use of timed fluency measures, and use of the number line as a tool for developing grade level mathematical concepts and higher order mathematical concepts (Fuchs et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref12">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Early intervention is crucial for closing learning gaps and preventing future difficulties. Early numeracy has been conceptualized as a unitary construct and a two‐factor construct, however there are also some results which suggest that early numeracy is best described as a three‐factor model made up of numbering, relations, and arithmetic operations (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref13">16</reflink>]; Purpura and Lonigan [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref14">26</reflink>]). Results from a recent longitudinal meta‐analysis suggest that early numeracy skills are increasingly related to later mathematics skills (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref15">16</reflink>]), thus providing early numeracy intervention may be beneficial for supporting future mathematics knowledge and skills.</p> <hd id="AN0186727893-3">Mathematics Interventions for DLLs</hd> <p>While these generally effective practices are also recommended for DLLs, instructional strategies specific to the needs of DLLs have been proposed. DLLs demonstrate unique needs for academic support due in part to the additional cognitive demands required for acquiring early numeracy skills in their second language (Genesee et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref16">13</reflink>]). As DLLs engage in instruction provided in their target language, they call on background knowledge from each of their language systems through the process of cross‐linguistic transfer (Swanson et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref17">31</reflink>]). When considering the needs of DLLs specifically, there are six recommended "instructional practices" for supporting students who are simultaneously acquiring the English language and at risk for mathematics difficulties (Doabler et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]). Recommendations include use of explicit, systematic, and strategic instruction that explicitly models mathematical concepts, vocabulary, procedures, and strategies, provision of multiple and varied opportunities to communicate their understanding and support the development of mathematical vocabulary, use visual representations, and the provision of DLLs "specific feedback" in a positive and timely manner (Doabler et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref19">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>While Doabler et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref20">7</reflink>]) recommendations link to instructional practices recommended for students at risk in Fuchs et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref21">11</reflink>]), they were also based on a limited research base (Richards‐Tutor et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref22">27</reflink>]). In a comprehensive overview of reading and mathematics intervention research with DLLs, Richards‐Tutor et al. found zero studies focused on mathematics intervention for DLLs ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref23">27</reflink>]). In a later review of single‐case research, Richards‐Tutor and colleagues identified only four studies focused on mathematics interventions for DLLs. Given the importance of supporting mathematics development of DLLs, investigating this gap in the literature is critical.</p> <hd id="AN0186727893-4">Research Questions and Study Purpose</hd> <p>To address this gap, the current review summarizes the recent literature on K‐5 mathematics interventions from the past decade (2010–2021) which examine studies of mathematics interventions that specifically target outcomes for DLLs or independently examine results of DLLs by disaggregating outcomes. Given the focus on the development of generally effective early numeracy interventions and the critical academic trajectory linked to the development of early mathematics skills, the scope of this review focuses on interventions designed to target early numeracy skills between kindergarten through fifth grade. Results from this review will build on previous reviews (Richards‐Tutor et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref24">27</reflink>]) of effective mathematics interventions and instructional strategies that support mathematics learning for DLLs. The following research questions will be addressed:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. What are the study characteristics of research on mathematics interventions for DLLs?</item> <p></p> <item> 2. What are the characteristics of effective mathematics interventions for DLLs?</item> </ulist> <p>The purpose of this review is to determine the scope of current intervention research regarding outcomes for DLLs at risk for mathematics difficulties in kindergarten through 5th grade. Given the infancy of research in this area, the purpose of the review is not to conduct a formal meta‐analysis of the literature, but rather to document the current state of the research and to drive future inquiries warranting additional research which will ultimately inform the provision of evidence‐based instructional practices for DLLs receiving mathematics intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0186727893-5">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186727893-6">Literature Search</hd> <p>First, an electronic database search of key terms related to mathematics intervention, student language status, and target population was conducted using the ERIC (Educational Resource Information Center) database. Additional data bases such as PsychINFO and Google Scholar were considered, however the initial search produced a high volume of potential articles that was outside the scope of the current article and authoring team to review. Specific search terms are detailed in Table 1 and the following Boolean string was used: math* AND (intervention) AND ("dual language" OR bilingual OR "English learner" OR EL OR ELL OR "Emergent Bilingual") AND ("Tier 2" OR risk OR at‐risk OR RTI OR MTSS) AND (K‐6 OR elementary OR primary) AND ("math difficulty" OR "math learning disability"). The initial database search was completed in November of 2021. The research team screened the existing peer‐reviewed literature published between 2010 and 2021. 2010 was selected as a search parameter due to the implementation of the Common Core State Standards initiative that year, which represented a significant shift in mathematics instruction and curricula. After identifying relevant articles for inclusion screening, a hand search was conducted across six prominent education research journals known to have a history of publishing mathematics intervention studies and that were present in the relevant articles identified in the database screening process (Learning Disability Quarterly, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Journal of School Psychology, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, Journal of Learning Disabilities, and Exceptional Children). Finally, an additional first author search from prominent authors in the field was conducted by examining the titles and abstracts of all published research articles since 2010 from Dr. Michael J. Orosco, Dr. H. Lee Swanson, and Dr. Jennifer E. Kong. These authors were chosen as many of their articles were identified in the initial database search. Titles and abstracts of all published articles from the database search and the hand searches since 2010 were examined for potential relevance to the research questions. In total, 80 articles were identified for a more thorough secondary review. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the review process.</p> <p>1 TABLE Systematic literature review search terms.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Mathematics intervention</th><th>Language status</th><th>Target population</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Math*</td><td>Dual language</td><td>K‐6</td></tr><tr><td>Math difficulty</td><td>Bilingual</td><td>Elementary</td></tr><tr><td>Math learning disability</td><td>English learner</td><td>Primary</td></tr><tr><td>Intervention</td><td>EL</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Tier 2</td><td>ELL</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Risk</td><td>Emergent bilingual</td><td /></tr><tr><td>At‐risk</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>RTI</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>MTSS</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Abbreviations: EL, English learner; ELL, English language learner; MTSS, multitiered systems of support; RTI, Response to intervention.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01aug25/pits23476-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23476-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Literature review process." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186727893-8">Inclusion Criteria</hd> <p>After the initial search, all 80 articles were independently screened for inclusion by the first four authors. The research team screened articles by examining the full text of the article and determining if it met the following criteria. Firstly, to be included in the final review the study needed to take place within the K‐5 context as the purpose of the current review is to examine elementary mathematics interventions. Included articles also had to be experimental and feature either a group or single‐case experimental or quasi‐experimental design. In line with this criteria, literature reviews, meta‐analyses, case studies, and narrative papers were excluded from the current study. Secondly, the article needed to be peer‐reviewed which excluded unpublished dissertations or thesis projects and conference presentations. Additionally, the current review only included studies conducted within the U.S. to focus on DLLs in U.S. schools. With the goal of examining intervention outcomes for DLLs, included studies needed to examine a Tier 2 or Tier 3 mathematics intervention. These criteria required researchers to identify students with mathematics difficulties that qualified for intervention through screening procedures. Lastly, studies were also required to include a mathematics outcome measure and must disaggregate data based on DLL status.</p> <p>All articles were screened for inclusion by two of the four first authors, and total percent agreement was calculated at 92.5% by dividing the number of agreements by the total number of articles. Of the initial 80 articles there were disagreements for six. Disagreements were resolved through review and discussion amongst all four coders, after which consensus was achieved. In total, 10 articles fit all inclusion criteria and were included in the final sample for additional coding.</p> <hd id="AN0186727893-9">Study Coding</hd> <p>All included articles were coded using the full text of the manuscripts. To orient to the study coding process and discuss relevant information to collect, the full research team coded 4 of the 10 included articles as a group before moving to an independent coding procedure. The final six articles were each independently coded by two of four independent coders across multiple dimensions. Relevant dimensions included research design, participants, intervention details, implementation, identification, interventionist, fidelity, outcome measures, and study outcomes. Research quality was not included as a metric in the coding scheme because it was outside of the scope of the current review. Each coder was provided with a code book that outlined how to record relevant information across the dimensions listed above. The coding protocol and code book was modeled after a published protocol from Dr. Gena Nelson ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref25">21</reflink>]). After all articles were coded, discrepancies were noted, and two additional independent coders were asked to resolve the discrepancies by coding for the specific dimension that was discrepant. If any discrepancies remained, they were discussed with the full team until consensus was reached. After independent coding, percent agreement was calculated at 75% by dividing the total code discrepancies over the total number of codes. Most discrepancies were found in anecdotal codes which required the coder to summarize core components of the study including "main outcome measures," "additional outcome measures," "main effect sizes," and "additional effect sizes." Differences in coding often resulted from individual differences in determining "main" and "additional" features.</p> <hd id="AN0186727893-10">Results</hd> <p>This study sought to determine if recent studies of Tier 2 or 3 mathematics interventions disaggregate and examine outcomes for DLLs and the features of these studies and interventions. The methods discussed above yielded 80 articles for full text review. Notably, 16 studies met all criteria <emph>except</emph> disaggregation of results for DLL students. Sixty‐four studies were excluded related to other criteria, resulting in 10 articles for final inclusion. Table 2 provides study characteristics including the research design, the name of a language proficiency measure if utilized, and the control or baseline conditions as well as participant characteristics including number of participants in each study condition, grade, and participant native language for all 10 included articles.</p> <p>2 TABLE Summary of study design and participants.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Article</th><th>Design</th><th>Control or baseline condition</th><th>N (Intervention)</th><th>N (Control)</th><th>N (DLLs)</th><th>Grade</th><th>Native language</th><th>Language proficiency measure</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Group Design</td><td>Doabler et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2018</xref>)</td><td>RCT</td><td>BAU Tier 1</td><td>880</td><td>371</td><td>295</td><td>K</td><td>225 Spanish, 57 Other (Arabic and Portuguese), 13 Unknown</td><td>ELPA, ACCESS</td></tr><tr><td>Driver and Powell (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2017</xref>)</td><td>QE</td><td>—</td><td>9</td><td /><td>9</td><td>3</td><td>8 Spanish, 1 Arabic and Nuba</td><td>WIDA</td></tr><tr><td>Fien et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2016</xref>)</td><td>RCT</td><td>BAU Tier 1 and Tier 2</td><td>125</td><td>125</td><td>47</td><td>1</td><td>NR</td><td>NR</td></tr><tr><td>Foster et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2018</xref>)</td><td>RCT</td><td>Phonological awareness CAI</td><td>119</td><td>117</td><td>236</td><td>K</td><td>Spanish</td><td>NR</td></tr><tr><td>Swanson et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2019</xref>)</td><td>RCT</td><td>BAU Tier 1</td><td>97</td><td>42</td><td>70</td><td>3</td><td>Spanish</td><td>CELDT</td></tr><tr><td>SCD</td><td>Kong and Swanson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2019</xref>)</td><td>MBD, CC</td><td>NR</td><td>9</td><td>—</td><td>9</td><td>3</td><td>8 Spanish, 1 Indonesian</td><td>CELDT</td></tr><tr><td>Luevano and Collins (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2020</xref>)</td><td>MBD</td><td>Core math curriculum</td><td>4</td><td>—</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>Spanish</td><td>State English Proficiency Assessment</td></tr><tr><td>Orosco (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">2013</xref>)</td><td>MBD, CC</td><td>NR</td><td>6</td><td>—</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>Spanish</td><td>CELDT</td></tr><tr><td>Orosco (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2014</xref>)</td><td>MBD, CC</td><td>NR</td><td>6</td><td>—</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>Spanish</td><td>CELDT</td></tr><tr><td>Orosco et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">2011</xref>)</td><td>MBD</td><td>NR</td><td>6</td><td>—</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>Spanish</td><td>CELDT</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 Abbreviations: BAU, Business as usual; CAI, Computer assisted intervention; CC, Changing criterion; CELDT, California English Language Development Test; Con, Control; DLLs, Dual Language Learners; ELPA, English Language Proficiency Assessment; Int, Intervention; MBD, Multiple baseline design; NR, Not reported; QE, Quasi‐experimental; RCT, Randomized control trial; SCD, Single case design; WIDA, World‐Class Instructional Design Assessment.</item> <item>3 a The nine participants in this quasi‐experimental, pre‐posttest design were compared to a control group in an earlier study (Fuchs et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref26">11</reflink>]).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186727893-11">Study Characteristics</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186727893-12">Research Design</hd> <p>Four of the studies included in this review were randomized control trials (RCTs), blocking on classrooms (Doabler et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>]; Fien et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref28">9</reflink>]; Foster et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref29">10</reflink>]; Swanson et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref30">32</reflink>]). One additional group design study was quasi‐experimental (Driver and Powell [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref31">8</reflink>]). The remaining five studies utilized single‐case design methods; two employing a multiple baseline design across participants (Luevano and Collins [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref32">17</reflink>]; Orosco et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref33">25</reflink>]), and three employing a changing criterion, multiple baseline design (Kong and Swanson [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref34">14</reflink>]; Orosco [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref35">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref36">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Of the four RCTs, two described the control condition as business as usual, Tier 1 mathematics instruction (i.e., general education curriculum; Doabler et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref37">7</reflink>]; Swanson et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref38">32</reflink>]). One described the control condition as business as usual including both Tier 1 and Tier 2 mathematics instruction (i.e., small group interventions were provided to the study participants per the typical curriculum; Fien et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref39">9</reflink>]). The final RCT utilized an active control of computer‐assisted instruction (CAI) in phonological awareness (Foster et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref40">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>All five single‐case studies routinely described the assessment conditions used to measure the dependent variables during the baseline phase. However, a description of the mathematics instruction students received during baseline was only present in one of five studies. Luevano and Collins [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref41">17</reflink>] described the baseline condition as core mathematics curriculum including instruction, modeling, and independent practice.</p> <hd id="AN0186727893-13">Participants</hd> <p>Students were identified for intervention across studies in various ways. A large proportion of studies (80%) reported using student scores on a mathematics measure to determine eligibility for intervention. Additionally, four studies included a measure of language proficiency or DLL status as a method of identifying students for intervention (Luevano and Collins [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref42">17</reflink>]; Orosco et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref43">25</reflink>]; Orosco [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref44">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref45">24</reflink>]). Often in addition to measures of language proficiency and mathematics achievement, 50% of studies also included teacher recommendation or approval for eligibility (Driver and Powell [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref46">8</reflink>]; Kong and Swanson [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref47">14</reflink>]; Orosco et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref48">25</reflink>]; Orosco [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref49">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref50">24</reflink>]). Researchers utilized various methods for determining mathematics cut scores for participant eligibility across included studies. Half of the 10 included studies reported using percentiles as cut scores (Driver and Powell [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref51">8</reflink>]; Kong and Swanson [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref52">14</reflink>]; Orosco [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref53">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref54">24</reflink>]; Swanson et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref55">32</reflink>]). Of these studies a majority (80%) identified the 25th percentile as their cutoff score while one study identified both the 25th and 35th percentile as their cutoff scores (Swanson et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref56">32</reflink>]). Other than using percentiles, some researchers used composite and/or benchmark scores (Doabler et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref57">6</reflink>]; Luevano and Collins [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref58">17</reflink>]; Orosco et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref59">25</reflink>]) and one study reported including the 10 lowest scoring students in a classroom (Fien et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref60">9</reflink>]). One study did not report specific methods for participant identification (Foster et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref61">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Across all 10 studies included in this review, there were 2521 participants. 785 (31%) participants were identified as dual language learners. Thirty‐one (1%) of the participants were included in the single‐case studies. Students in kindergarten through third grade were represented in these studies, with a notable absence of intervention studies for upper elementary grade levels. Four studies (40%) had participants from the third grade (Driver and Powell [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref62">8</reflink>]; Kong and Swanson [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref63">14</reflink>]; Orosco [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref64">24</reflink>]; Swanson et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref65">32</reflink>]), three studies (30%) from second grade (Luevano and Collins [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref66">17</reflink>]; Orosco [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref67">23</reflink>]; Orosco et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref68">25</reflink>]), one study (10%) from first grade (Fien et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref69">9</reflink>]), and two studies (20%) had participants from kindergarten (Doabler et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref70">6</reflink>]; Foster et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref71">10</reflink>]). Five studies (50%) indicated whether the students were receiving special education services, two (20%) of which did include students receiving special education services (Doabler et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref72">6</reflink>]; Fien et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref73">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Because the population of interest for this review was DLLs, information regarding the native language and language proficiency measures included in each study was coded. One study (10%) did not report the native language of DLL participants (Fien et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref74">9</reflink>]). In the other nine studies (90%), Spanish was the most represented language, with 569 Spanish‐speaking participants. One study (10%) described 57 of the DLLs as "other," including the languages of Arabic and Portuguese, and 13 participants as "unknown" (Doabler et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref75">6</reflink>]). One study (10%) included an Arabic and Nuba speaker (Driver and Powell [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref76">8</reflink>]), and one (10%) included an Indonesian speaker (Kong and Swanson [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref77">14</reflink>]). Eight of the 10 (80%) studies reported a language proficiency measure. Five (63%) used the California English Language Development Test (Kong and Swanson [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref78">14</reflink>]; Orosco et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref79">25</reflink>]; Orosco [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref80">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref81">24</reflink>]; Swanson et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref82">32</reflink>]), one (13%) used the World‐Class Instructional Design and Assessment (Driver and Powell [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref83">8</reflink>]), and one (13%) used the English Language Proficiency Assessment (Doabler et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref84">6</reflink>]). One (13%) study used an unidentified state English Language Proficiency Assessment (Luevano and Collins [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref85">17</reflink>]). Language proficiency reporting varied from giving an average score across participants to indicating the proficiency levels of each student.</p> <hd id="AN0186727893-14">Intervention Characteristics</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186727893-15">Intervention Summary</hd> <p>To further assess characteristics of mathematics interventions for DLLs the descriptions of each intervention were evaluated on Doabler and colleagues six instructional practices of effective strategies for DLLs (Doabler et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref86">7</reflink>]). Almost all the articles (90%) reported that their intervention utilized explicit, systematic, or strategic instruction and that the intervention included specific performance feedback apart from Foster et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref87">10</reflink>]). All articles reported that their intervention included explicit models of mathematical concepts, vocabulary, procedures, and/or strategies. 70% of articles reported that their intervention included opportunities for students to communicate their understanding/thinking (Doabler et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref88">6</reflink>]; Driver and Powell [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref89">8</reflink>]; Luevano and Collins [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref90">17</reflink>]; Orosco et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref91">25</reflink>]; Orosco [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref92">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref93">24</reflink>]; Swanson et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref94">32</reflink>]) and 60% reported the use of visuals to link mathematical concepts and ideas (Doabler et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref95">6</reflink>]; Driver and Powell [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref96">8</reflink>]; Fien et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref97">9</reflink>]; Foster et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref98">10</reflink>]; Kong & Swanson; Luevano and Collins [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref99">17</reflink>]). Lastly, only 50% of studies reported that interventions included support for learning mathematical vocabulary (Doabler et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref100">6</reflink>]; Luevano and Collins [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref101">17</reflink>]; Orosco et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref102">25</reflink>]; Orosco [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref103">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref104">24</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186727893-16">Implementation Characteristics</hd> <p>Intervention session duration ranged from 15 to 45 min across included studies. Total intervention duration ranged from 5 to 21 weeks with a large proportion of interventions lasting 10 weeks or less (80%). Some (60%) studies specifically reported the specific setting in which the intervention took place. Of these studies, one reported that intervention took place in the general education classroom (Kong and Swanson [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref105">14</reflink>]), two took place in another classroom within the school other than the general or special education classroom (Fien et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref106">9</reflink>]; Foster et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref107">10</reflink>]), and three reported that the intervention took place in another location within the school such as a hallway, library, etc. (Orosco et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref108">25</reflink>]; Orosco [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref109">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref110">24</reflink>]). Intervention group size also varied between studies with 40% of studies reporting that the intervention was provided one on one (Foster et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref111">10</reflink>]; Luevano and Collins [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref112">17</reflink>]; Orosco et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref113">25</reflink>]; Orosco [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref114">24</reflink>]), 40% reporting that the intervention was provided to small groups of students (five or fewer; Driver and Powell [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref115">8</reflink>]; Doabler et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref116">6</reflink>]; Kong and Swanson [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref117">14</reflink>]; Swanson et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref118">32</reflink>]), one study did not report intervention group size and one study was administered via a computer program in the computer lab.</p> <p>All studies included some measure of implementation fidelity. A majority (70%) of researchers reported out percentages based on interventionist's adherence to the program. Percentage adherence ranged from 94% to 100% across studies suggesting high fidelity of implementation. Two studies reported fidelity of implementation on a 4‐point scale with a range between 3.3 and 3.61 (Doabler et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref119">6</reflink>]; Fien et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref120">9</reflink>]). One study did not report quantitative fidelity data (Foster et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref121">10</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186727893-17">Interventionists</hd> <p>All included studies reported who administered the intervention with some reporting multiple interventionists. Most interventions were at least partially implemented by research staff (70%). Interventions were also administered by general education teachers (30%), other school staff (20%), outside school staff hired for the research project (20%), and via electronic devices (10%). Information regarding the language(s) spoken by interventionists was reported in 50% of the included studies. All interventionists spoke English and three studies reported that at least some interventionists spoke Spanish (Driver and Powell [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref122">8</reflink>]; Luevano and Collins [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref123">17</reflink>]; Orosco [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref124">23</reflink>]). Two studies noted that at least one interventionist was bilingual (Orosco et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref125">25</reflink>]; Orosco [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref126">24</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186727893-18">Outcomes</hd> <p>Researchers utilized several outcomes measures across included studies including both published assessments and researcher‐created measures. All included studies reported outcomes on mathematics measures and one study included an additional reading outcome measure (Swanson et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref127">32</reflink>]). Intervention outcomes were also presented in various ways. Most studies included effect sizes such as Hedge's <emph>g</emph> (40%) and partial eta squared (20%). Two studies reported Tau estimates (Kong and Swanson [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref128">14</reflink>]; Luevano and Collins [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref129">17</reflink>]), one study utilized visual analysis (Orosco [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref130">24</reflink>]), and one study reported standard scores pre‐ and post‐intervention (Orosco [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref131">23</reflink>]). Across most studies, intervention effects for DLLs were positive. Some studies reported ranges of effect sizes for DLLs across different outcome measures (Doabler et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref132">6</reflink>]; Fien et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref133">9</reflink>]; Foster et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref134">10</reflink>]; Swanson et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref135">32</reflink>]). Although many included studies reported positive student outcomes, the variation between outcome measures makes it difficult to draw conclusions regarding intervention effectiveness overall. Of the included studies, 50% included measures of social validity (Driver and Powell [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref136">8</reflink>]; Luevano and Collins [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref137">17</reflink>]; Orosco et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref138">25</reflink>]; Orosco [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref139">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref140">24</reflink>]). Acceptability ranged from 79% to 100% across articles.</p> <hd id="AN0186727893-19">Discussion</hd> <p>This review examined the recent literature on mathematics interventions for DLLs in kindergarten through fifth grade. To do this, 10 experimental, peer‐reviewed papers meeting inclusion criteria were coded by the research team. Studies included a range of implementation characteristics, but all reported a high fidelity of implementation (94%–100% implementation fidelity). All studies reported outcome measures, with most demonstrating positive intervention effects for DLLs. While some instructional practices shown to be effective for DLLs were utilized in the included studies, interventions consistently demonstrated a lack of consistent use of explicit mathematics vocabulary instruction. Similar findings were demonstrated in previous reviews such as Richards‐Tutor et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref141">27</reflink>]) which identified 12 studies focused on early reading intervention for DLLs, and Arizmendi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref142">2</reflink>]) which identified 12 studies on math interventions for DLLs. Limitations and recommendations for future research are discussed below.</p> <hd id="AN0186727893-20">Limitations</hd> <p>One limitation to this review was the decision to conduct the article search using ERIC, a journal hand search, and follow up searches with key authors. While this decision was made based on targeting the most likely article sources, inclusion of additional databases such as PsycInfo, Academic Search Complete, or larger search engines like Google Scholar may have yielded additional results (Xiao and Watson [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref143">35</reflink>]). Additionally, some variables in the coding process were descriptive in nature, and the subjectivity present in how each coder described those variables impacted initial interrater reliability and required further discussion and assessment to reach consensus. Coding for specific intervention components was added after the initial coding was complete to further elaborate on the research question related to characteristics of mathematics interventions for this population. Finally, a quantitative synthesis was not included as part of this review, which limited the ability of the current review to draw quantitative conclusions related to the effects of specific variables like instructional strategies, language elements, and intervention type.</p> <hd id="AN0186727893-21">Directions for Future Research</hd> <p>Results from the current study illustrate the need for more mathematics intervention studies that include DLLs and examine outcomes for DLLs. The inclusion criteria for the current study required researchers to report on intervention outcomes specifically for DLLs, this criterion led to the exclusion of many quality intervention studies that included DLLs but did not report outcomes for DLLs specifically. Additionally, while many studies in the current review included interventions with strategies to support DLLs, findings suggest an additional need for mathematics interventions focused on supporting DLLs. It is also recommended that previously published mathematics intervention studies reexamine intervention outcomes specifically for DLLs.</p> <p>Across instructional strategies to support learning for DLLs, many studies included elements such as explicit instruction, mathematical models, and specific feedback. These findings are consistent with previous reviews (Baker et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref144">3</reflink>]). Previous research has identified that mathematics interventions focused on mathematics language are effective for dual language learners (Arizmendi et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref145">2</reflink>]). In a review of language‐focused mathematics interventions for DLL students, Arizmendi and colleagues identified few interventions that met inclusion criteria and called for the inclusion of measurable language‐focused goals that align with the intervention material ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref146">2</reflink>]). Increasing the methodological rigor in which components associated with mathematics language are assessed as key intervention components may improve the effectiveness of mathematics interventions for DLLs (Arizmendi et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref147">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another finding from the current review illustrates a gap in the current literature based on grade‐level. Across articles included in the current study, interventions only targeted students in the early elementary grades (K‐3). As grade‐level content increases in complexity, access to evidence‐based interventions can help further support DLLs who are struggling with mathematics. While practitioners can utilize instructional practices to support DLLs in the later grades within core instruction, embedding these practices into mathematics interventions ensures that DLLs with mathematics difficulties receive necessary support. While there has been an increase in research on effective fractions interventions, research to date has not reported out or had a focus on DLLs (Rojo et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref148">29</reflink>]). Of the 43 studies included in the meta‐analysis of rational number sense interventions conducted by Rojo et al. only one focused explicitly on outcomes for DLLs ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref149">29</reflink>]). As such, there have yet to be further studies related to use of rational number interventions with DLLs, leaving an extensive gap in the literature and availability of evidence‐based instructional materials for multilingual students at risk for difficulties in mathematics and establishing the need for future research to focus explicitly on outcomes for DLLs.</p> <p>The current review identified several limitations in the included articles. Multiple articles lacked information on the language proficiency of students and interventionists as well as the context in which intervention was provided. There have been calls for decades for researchers to incorporate language proficiency into their studies of educational programs and academic instruction when including bilingual students (Cummins [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref150">5</reflink>]). This is especially important as children are developing skills and receiving instruction in a new language. Although mathematical skills may be thought to be distinct from language skills, the process of learning mathematics includes understanding language‐heavy concepts and specific mathematics vocabulary. In their 1999 article, Garrison and Mora suggest that if educators are to teach an unknown concept to DLL students, they need to do so using the known language if possible (Garrison and Mora [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref151">12</reflink>]). When students are expected to learn unknown mathematical concepts in an unknown language instruction may need to be supplemented or modified to facilitate learning in the known language and/or further support the development of the unknown language (Garrison and Mora [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref152">12</reflink>]). Recent studies have also shown differential mathematical learning effects for DLL students enrolled in dual language immersion programs (Morita‐Mullaney et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref153">19</reflink>]; Serafini et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref154">30</reflink>]). Although previous research has emphasized the importance of language acquisition when acquiring new mathematics skills, few articles included in the current review provided information on whether professional development related to instruction of DLLs was provided to teachers, what language instruction was provided in, and if students were enrolled in English Language Development (ELD) or language immersion programs. These findings are consistent with previous reviews. For example, in their review of mathematics instruction for K‐12 DLL students, de Araujo and colleagues called for researchers to better describe the context of instruction including the school context, student language background, and teacher language/educational background (De Araujo et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref155">1</reflink>]). Future research on mathematics interventions for DLLs should include this contextual information within and outside of the context of intervention delivery so that researchers and educators can develop a stronger understanding of the interaction between language and mathematics outcomes.</p> <p>Results of the current review also revealed a common limitation of the included articles regarding interventionist characteristics. As noted above, few of the included articles described interventionist language proficiencies or training in language instruction. In addition, few studies reported using "natural intervention agents" (30%), such as general education teachers, special education teachers, and other relevant school staff. Most of the interventions (70%) were at least partially implemented by researchers. Although researchers are most familiar with the intervention and therefore, potentially more skilled in administering the intervention with fidelity, teachers are often tasked with implementation in school settings. Using natural intervention agents can also provide researchers with feasibility and social validity information. Findings from the current review indicate that only 50% of included studies reported on the social validity of the intervention which results in insufficient information on whether the remaining half of the studies addressed relevant concerns for DLLs in a manner that is acceptable to relevant stakeholders. These results are consistent with recent reviews of social validity measures found in early language interventions for DLLs (Larson et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref156">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>While there have been significant advances in the field's understanding and research on effective mathematics interventions (Fuchs et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref157">11</reflink>]), results from the present review suggest that there is a significant gap in the knowledge base on mathematics interventions for DLLs. Given the growing number of DLLs students served in our nation's schools, it is critical that future research is focused in this area with the goal of providing insight and knowledge to better support the learning needs of DLL students.</p> <hd id="AN0186727893-22">Implications for Practice</hd> <p>Results from the present review may inform instructional decisions related to the provision of mathematics intervention for DLLs in schools. Intervention studies included within the review were mostly conducted in English or Spanish. Throughout the U.S., DLLs represent a heterogenous group of students that speak many languages. Therefore, educators may need to make additional instructional considerations based on their students' individual home languages when selecting and delivering mathematics interventions. It is important to note that modifications or supplements used with one group of DLL students may need to be altered for a different group of DLL students, especially if students have different home languages or levels of proficiency in the English language. For example, educators may need to consider cognates and false cognates existing between students' home languages and English when teaching mathematics vocabulary, which may differ for students that speak Spanish as their home language, for example, and students who speak Russian (Roberts and Truxaw [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref158">28</reflink>]). Moreover, educators may incorporate instructional content that identifies differences between everyday usage of vocabulary terms such as "volume," "cubed," or "prime," and the mathematics usage of these terms (Roberts and Truxaw [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref159">28</reflink>]). One helpful method for addressing the need for explicit vocabulary instruction and frequent exposure to new terms is to create a vocabulary list and scaffold use of new terms using examples, opportunities to practice using new terms in the context of mathematics, and the use of graphic organizers to support recall of new terms across lessons (Roberts and Truxaw [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref160">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Due to the limited amount of mathematics intervention studies with DLLs, educators must also consider the existing evidence base and best practices when selecting interventions for DLLs. Previous work in the field has indicated that both pre‐service and in‐service professional development focused on instructional strategies for teaching DLLs yield positive effects on mathematics achievement outcomes for DLL students (Master et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref161">18</reflink>]). For interventions that have not demonstrated efficacy for DLLs, educators may consider including additional modifications to ensure provision of instructional practices deemed effective for DLLs such as those outlined in Doabler et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref162">7</reflink>]) or Fuchs et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref163">11</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186727893-23">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Ben Clarke is eligible to receive a portion of royalties from the University of Oregon's distribution and licensing of certain ROOTS‐based works. Potential conflicts of interest are managed through the University of Oregon's Research Compliance Services.</p> <hd id="AN0186727893-24">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0186727893-25"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref155" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> De Araujo, Z., S. A. Roberts, C. Willey, and W. Zahner. 2018. " English Learners In K‐12 Mathematics Education: A Review of the Literature." Review of Educational Research 88, no. 6 : 879 – 919. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319798093.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref142" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Arizmendi, G. D., J. T. Li, M. L. Van Horn, S. D. Petcu, and H. L. Swanson. 2021. " Language‐Focused Interventions on Math Performance for English Learners: A Selective Meta‐Analysis of the Literature." Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 36, no. 1 : 56 – 75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref144" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, D. L., C. R. Richards‐Tutor, A. Sparks, and R. Canges. 2018. " Review of Single Subject Research Examining the Effectiveness of Interventions for At‐Risk English Learners." Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 33, no. 2 : 64 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12160.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, S., N. Lesaux, M. Jayanthi, et al. (2014). Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School. IES Practice Guide. NCEE 2014‐4012. What Works Clearinghouse.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref150" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cummins, J. 1979. " Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of Bilingual Children." Review of Educational Research 49, no. 2 : 222 – 251.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref57" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Doabler, C. T., B. Clarke, D. Kosty, et al. 2019. " Building Number Sense Among English Learners: A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial of a Tier 2 Kindergarten Mathematics Intervention." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 47 : 432 – 444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j-eresq.2018.08.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref18" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Doabler, C. T., N. J. Nelson, and B. Clarke. 2016. " Adapting Evidence‐Based Practices to Meet the Needs of English Learners With Mathematics Difficulties." Teaching Exceptional Children 48, no. 6 : 301 – 310.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref31" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Driver, M. K., and S. R. Powell. 2017. " Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Schema Intervention: Improving Word Problem Solving for English language Learners With Mathematics Difficulty." Learning Disability Quarterly 40, no. 1 : 41 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948716646730.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref28" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Fien, H., C. T. Doabler, N. J. Nelson, D. B. Kosty, B. Clarke, and S. K. Baker. 2016. " An Examination of the Promise of the NumberShire Level 1 Gaming Intervention for Improving Student Mathematics Outcomes." Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 9, no. 4 : 635 – 661. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1119229.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foster, M. E., J. L. Anthony, D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, and J. J. Williams. 2018. " Hispanic Dual Language Learning Kindergarten Students' Response to a Numeracy Intervention: A Randomized Control Trial." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 43 : 83 – 95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.01.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs, L. S., N. Bucka, B. Clarke, et al. 2021. Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Intervention in the Elementary Grades. Educator's Practice Guide. WWC 2021006. What Works Clearinghouse.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garrison, L., and J. K. Mora. 1999. " Adapting Mathematics Instruction for English Language Learners: The Language‐Concept Connections." Changing the Faces of Mathematics: Perspectives on Latinos, ed. I. L. Ortiz‐Franco, N. G. Hernandez, and Y. De La Cruz, 35 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Genesee, F., E. Geva, C. Dressler, and M. L. Kamil. 2006. " Synthesis: Cross‐Linguistic Relationships." In Developing Literacy in Second‐Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language‐Minority Children and Youth, edited by D. August and T. Shanahan, 153 – 174. Laurence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315094922.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kong, J. E., and H. L. Swanson. 2019. " The Effects of a Paraphrasing Intervention on Word Problem‐Solving Accuracy of English Learners at Risk of Mathematic Disabilities." Learning Disability Quarterly 42, no. 2 : 92 – 104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718806659.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larson, A. L., Z. G. An, C. Wood, et al. 2020. " Social Validity in Early Language Interventions for Dual Language Learners: A Systematic Review of the Literature." Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 40, no. 1 : 39 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121419901289.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, Y., P. Peng, and X. Yan. 2025. " Early Numeracy and Mathematics Development: A Longitudinal Meta‐Analysis on the Predictive Nature of Early Numeracy." Journal of Educational Psychology : 1 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000925.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luevano, C., and T. A. Collins. 2020. " Culturally Appropriate Math Problem‐Solving Instruction With English Language Learners." School Psychology Review 49, no. 2 : 144 – 160. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1717243.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Master, B., S. Loeb, C. Whitney, and J. Wyckoff. 2016. " Different Skills? Identifying Differentially Effective Teachers of English Language Learners." The Elementary School Journal 117, no. 2 : 261 – 284.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morita‐Mullaney, T., J. Renn, and M. M. CHIu. 2021. " Contesting Math as the Universal Language: A Longitudinal Study of Dual Language Bilingual Education Language Allocation." International Multilingual Research Journal 15, no. 1 : 43 – 60. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2020.1753930.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. 2024. English Learners in Public Schools. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf/english-learners.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson, G. 2021. "' Proportional Reasoning Interventions in Special Education Synthesis Coding Protocol'. [Coding Protocol]." Early and Special Education Faculty Publications and Presentations : 136. https://doi.org/10.18122/sped136.boisestate.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson, G., and K. L. McMaster. 2019. " The Effects of Early Numeracy Interventions for Students in Preschool and Early Elementary: A Meta‐Analysis." Journal of Educational Psychology 111, no. 6 : 1001 – 1022.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orosco, M. J. 2013. " The Development of a Math Strategy in Spanish for Latino English Language Learners At Risk for Math Disabilities." International Journal for Research in Learning Disabilities 1, no. 2 : 86 – 108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orosco, M. J. 2014. " A Math Intervention for Third Grade Latino English Language Learners At Risk for Math Disabilities." Exceptionality 22 : 205 – 225. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2013.865535.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orosco, M. J., H. L. Swanson, R. O'Connor, and C. Lussier. 2011. " The Effects of Dynamic Strategic Math on English Language Learners' Word Problem Solving." Journal of Special Education 47, no. 2 : 96 – 107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911416248.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Purpura, D. J., and C. J. Lonigan. 2013. " Informal Numeracy Skills: The Structure and Relations Among Numbering, Relations, and Arithmetic Operations in Preschool." American Educational Research Journal 50, no. 1 : 178 – 209. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212465332.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richards‐Tutor, C., D. L. Baker, R. Gersten, S. K. Baker, and J. M. Smith. 2016. " The Effectiveness of Reading Interventions for English Learners: A Research Synthesis." Exceptional Children 82 : 144 – 169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585483.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, N. S., and M. P. Truxaw. 2013. " For ELLs: Vocabulary Beyond the Definitions." Mathematics Teacher 107, no. 1 : 28 – 34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rojo, M., S. King, J. Gersib, and D. P. Bryant. 2023. " Rational Number Interventions for Students With Mathematics Difficulties: A Meta‐Analysis." Remedial and Special Education 44, no. 3 : 225 – 238.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Serafini, E. J., N. Rozell, and A. Winsler. 2020. " Academic and English language Outcomes for DLLs as a Function of School Bilingual Education Model: The Role of Two‐Way Immersion and Home Language Support." International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 25, no. 2 : 552 – 570. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1707477.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swanson, H. L., J. Kong, and S. Petcu. 2018. " Math Difficulties and Working Memory Growth In English language Learner Children: Does Bilingual Proficiency Play a Significant Role? " Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 49, no. 3 : 379 – 394. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17-0098.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swanson, H. L., J. E. Kong, A. S. Moran, and M. J. Orosco. 2019. " Paraphrasing Interventions and Problem‐Solving Accuracy: Do Generative Procedures Help English Language Learners With Math Difficulties." Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 34, no. 2 : 68 – 84. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12194.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tao, L., G. Wang, M. Zhu, and Q. Cai. 2021. " Bilingualism and Domain‐General Cognitive Functions From a Neural Perspective: A Systematic Review." Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 125 : 264 – 295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.029.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), 2022 Mathematics Assessment.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xiao, Y., and M. Watson. 2019. " Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review." Journal of Planning Education and Research 39, no. 1 : 93 – 112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Cayla Lussier; Madison Cook; Sarah Quinn; Joanna Hermida; Manda Nambiar; Emily Wilke and Ben Clarke</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref161"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1477402
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Supporting Dual Language Learners' Mathematical Development: Lessons Learned from a Systematic Literature Review
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cayla+Lussier%22">Cayla Lussier</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5627-5378">0000-0001-5627-5378</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Madison+Cook%22">Madison Cook</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sarah+Quinn%22">Sarah Quinn</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7309-0110">0000-0002-7309-0110</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Joanna+Hermida%22">Joanna Hermida</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Manda+Nambiar%22">Manda Nambiar</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Emily+Wilke%22">Emily Wilke</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ben+Clarke%22">Ben Clarke</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. 2025 62(8):2398-2407.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bilingual+Students%22">Bilingual Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Education%22">Mathematics Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Skills%22">Mathematics Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Strategies%22">Educational Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Mathematics%22">Elementary School Mathematics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Intervention%22">Early Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Instruction%22">Mathematics Instruction</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.23476
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085<br />1520-6807
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: With the number of students classified as Dual Language Learners (DLLs) in U.S. schools consistently increasing, it is important for educators to consider academic interventions that include evidence-based practices to support DLLs. Specifically in the field of mathematics, several strategies have been recommended to support DLLs' mathematical development. However, it is difficult to determine if mathematics intervention programs are utilizing these strategies effectively for DLLs. The purpose of the current review is to examine the current elementary mathematics intervention research base to determine relevant study and intervention characteristics within published research articles. Results demonstrate a lack of early mathematics intervention research articles that examine mathematics outcomes for DLLs. Additionally, results suggest that of the included articles, many early mathematics interventions include key strategies that support DLLs. Based on these findings, implications for future research and practice are further discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1477402
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1477402
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.23476
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 2398
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Bilingual Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Mathematics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Instruction
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Supporting Dual Language Learners' Mathematical Development: Lessons Learned from a Systematic Literature Review
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cayla Lussier
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Madison Cook
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sarah Quinn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Joanna Hermida
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Manda Nambiar
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Emily Wilke
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ben Clarke
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1520-6807
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 62
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1