WTS 1 and 2

Visual Supports in Special Education Math

Jacqueline Pankhurst
Saint Marys University of Minnesota
Schools of Graduate and Professional Programs
Portfolio Entry for Wisconsin Teacher Standard 1 & 2
EDUW 691 Professional Skills Development
Caroline Hickethier, Instructor
October 29, 2014

page 1 of 23

WTS 1 and 2

page 2 of 23

Selected Wisconsin Teacher Standard Descriptors

Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 1: Teachers know the subjects they are teaching.
The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the
discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of
subject matter meaningful for students.
Knowledge. The teacher understands how students conceptual frameworks and their
misconceptions for an area of knowledge can influence their learning.
Dispositions. The teacher is committed to continuous learning and engages in
professional discourse about subject matter knowledge and childrens learning of the discipline.
Performances. The teacher effectively uses multiple representations and explanations of
disciplinary concepts that capture key ideas and links them to students' prior understandings.

WTS 1 and 2

page 3 of 23

Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 2: Teachers know how children grow.

The teacher understands how children with broad ranges of ability learn and develop, and
can provide instruction that supports their intellectual, social, and personal development.
Knowledge. The teacher understands how learning occurs-how students construct knowledge,
acquire skills, and develop habits of mind-and knows how to use instructional strategies that
promote student learning for a wide range of student abilities.
Dispositions. The teacher appreciates individual variation within each area of
development, shows respect for the diverse talents of all learners, and is committed to help them
develop self-confidence and competence.
Performances. The teacher stimulates student reflection on prior knowledge and links
new ideas to already familiar ideas, making connections to students experiences, providing
opportunities for active engagement, manipulation, and testing of ideas and materials, and
encouraging students to assume responsibility for shaping their learning tasks.

WTS 1 and 2
Danielson Domains
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Component 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
Component 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
Component 1c: Selecting Instructional Goals
Component 1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
Component 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction
Component 1f: Assessing Student Learning
Domain 3: Instruction
Component 3a: Communicating Clearly and Accurately
Component 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning
Component 3d: Providing Feedback to Students
Component 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness

page 4 of 23

WTS 1 and 2

page 5 of 23

Pre-assessments
Self-assessment of Instruction Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
For Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 1 and 2, I want to focus on my teaching methods
in my Special Education math class to improve student achievement by using more visual
supports. My Special Education math class is a supplement to the general education math class
that all of my students are also enrolled in. The class consists of seven seventh-grade students
with a wide range of math ability. With the exception of one, all of my students are at least two
grade levels behind as assessed by the Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment, which
is a district wide assessment. Six of my students have a documented Specific Learning
Disability (SLD), and one has a Cognitive Disability (CD). These students have been identified
as needing an additional daily math class in order to make gains in their math skills by their
Individualized Education Program (IEP) team. In this additional math class, the focus is on
remediating foundational skill deficits to allow for greater success in the general education
curriculum.
For the WTS 1 knowledge descriptor, I chose, The teacher understands how students
conceptual frameworks and their misconceptions for an area of knowledge can influence their
learning. In math, most of the topics covered in middle school depend on students having
mastered foundational skills. As many of my students are working below a fifth-grade math
level, they do not have the foundational skills expected of a seventh-grade student. This makes
learning grade level concepts challenging for them. I also find there are many conceptual
misconceptions I have to address in order for them to find success.
The WTS 2 knowledge descriptor I chose states The teacher understands how learning
occurs-how students construct knowledge, acquire skills, and develop habits of mind-and knows

WTS 1 and 2

page 6 of 23

how to use instructional strategies that promote student learning for a wide range of student
abilities. Many of my students struggle to pay attention in a general education classroom where
they are expected to sit for the majority of the period. They require different instructional
strategies to help them develop expected skills.
One of the disposition descriptors I chose focuses on helping students develop selfconfidence and competence. This is one area that I strive to improve in. Many of my students
have already experienced many years of failure in math and are hesitant to try out new ideas or
construct knowledge through experiences on their own. General education teachers and parents
have reported that these students are quiet in an inclusion classroom setting and rarely volunteer
to share with peers. I also chose the disposition descriptor the teacher is committed to
continuous learning and engages in professional discourse about subject matter knowledge and
childrens learning of the discipline. General education teachers meet regularly in Professional
Learning Community (PLC) groups, but as a special education teacher in my district, there are
not as many opportunities to collaborate with other special education teachers. This is one of my
priorities this year and I have started to work with our district math coordinator to develop more
concrete and visual activities to support my struggling learners.
For the performance descriptors, I chose the teacher effectively uses multiple
representations and explanations and providing opportunities for active engagement,
manipulation, and testing of ideas and materials, and encouraging students to assume
responsibility for shaping their learning tasks. It is a delicate balance to use enough
representations and strategies with my special education students that help them develop the
necessary conceptual framework, but not so many that they are overwhelmed and confused. In
my instruction, I need to give students various views of different strategies, but also work to

WTS 1 and 2

page 7 of 23

connect those multiple views in order for them to develop the ability to generalize the skills I am
teaching. This is a skill that I have found is very difficult for students with learning disabilities.
Assessment of Student Performance Related to Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
I teach a supplemental math class in the early afternoon for 40 minutes daily. This
replaces a student-selected class, such as art or music, for all of my students. My students
abilities range from a second to sixth-grade level as determined by the MAP assessment. At the
beginning of the year, I gave all of my students a pre-test to assess their ability in foundational
skills. These skills include identifying, comparing, and performing operations with whole
numbers, decimals, and fractions. These are all skills that students should have mastered by
seventh-grade and are no longer skills addressed by the Common Core State Standards at the
seventh-grade level. The parts that I focused on were the decimal number sense questions. Two
students were able to complete problems that involved comparing numbers with decimal value
with 80% accuracy, three students answered 60% of those questions correct, and two students
scored below 60%. Although two students were able to complete the task with 80% accuracy,
they were unable to explain their answers. Artifact A shows class scores for this task.
To get a better understanding of why my students struggled so much with this task, I
looked at other sections from their pre-test. My students also lacked understanding in
identification of the different place values. Only one student demonstrated knowledge of
different place values, with three students getting 17% of those questions correct, and three
students who were not able to complete any of those questions accurately. I believe their lack of
understanding in this skill is a strong contributor to their inability to accurately compare decimal
numbers correctly.
Assessment of Learning Environment While Learning Targeted Objective(s)

WTS 1 and 2

page 8 of 23

At the beginning of the year, I also had my students complete a survey about their overall
attitude towards math. Artifact B shows examples of student responses to the survey questions.
Four out of seven of my students listed decimals as a topic in math that they considered to be
hard for them. Three of my students also indicated that one way they learn things well in math is
to draw a picture to represent a problem. Four of my students stated that before working on
decimal number sense they felt confused and nervous about having to describe decimal values.
Many of their concerns about math classes this year have to do with retaking assessments in the
general education classroom.
In the past, when working on these units, it has been difficult to maintain student
engagement. Students have been unmotivated to work towards conceptual understanding and
seemed more focused on just getting the work completed. They have answered questions from
the teacher, but students rarely assumed responsibility for their own learning. Previous students
have stated that they feel hesitant to work on answering a question if they do not feel confident in
their ability.
Assessment Conclusion and Essential Question to Guide Research
The self-assessment, assessment of student performance, and learning environment
assessment indicate that my students need more visual supports in order to cultivate conceptual
framework in mathematics. The need to add in visual supports is evident, as many of my
students have received years of additional math instruction, but have failed to show significant
gains in understanding. As a teacher, I need to develop activities and tasks rich in visual content
to support the varying needs of different learner types. My learning goal, stated as a question to
guide research, comes from the ideas in WTS 1 & 2: How does the use of visual representations
impact growth in mathematical computation for students with learning disabilities?

WTS 1 and 2

page 9 of 23

Research Summary
Mathematics instruction is undergoing a major shift with the implementation of the
Common Core State Standards. There is a much higher focus on being able to apply conceptual
understanding to a variety of situations rather than rote memorization of an algorithm. Students
today are held to higher expectations at younger ages than ever before in math. In addition, there
has been a push for students with disabilities to join their peers in the general education
classroom. When students do not have the conceptual understanding that is expected of primary
grade levels, they struggle to stay afloat in these general education settings and develop higherlevel math concepts.
As reported by Strickland and Maccini (2012), U.S. students have not made the
achievement gains expected on national assessments (p. 142). Strickland and Maccini went on
further to state that according to statics from the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES), the gains for students with disabilities were even worse, as even more of those students
were achieving below the proficiency level. Closing the achievement gap continues to be a focus
in school districts across the country. Research has generated instructional strategies to close the
gap when it comes to reading deficits, but there has been less research done on different
instructional techniques for mathematics. One technique that has been around several years, but
has received growing attention in recent years is the Concrete-Representational-Abstract (CRA)
approach. Several studies have been done in different math skill areas to assess the effects CRA
has on student achievement.
CRA is a three-step method to develop conceptual understanding, but eventually allow
for students to generalize their understanding to a procedural approach. Witzel, Riccomini, and
Schneider (2008) list the three steps as follows:

WTS 1 and 2

page 10 of 23

1. C: the concrete phase, in which students learn from hands-on instruction

2. R: the representational phase, in which students learn from picture representations
3. A: the abstract phase, in which students use abstract notation
Witzel et al. went on to state the CRA instructional sequence provides multiple opportunities
for students to acquire mathematical skills through multimodal forms of learning (p. 271). This
allows students of varying learning styles to have their needs met through this instructional style.
This is critical for students who have learning disabilities and have proved that traditional
instruction has not helped them make gains in mathematics.
In 2008, Witzel et al. proposed that using the CRA method allowed students to translate
abstract concepts into procedures that are understandable for them when working at the concrete
and representational stages. Witzel et al. declared this offered a more meaningful and
contextually relevant alternative to shallow and rote memorization of algorithms and rules (p.
271). Again, for students with learning disabilities, this is critical. Instead of relying on
memory, which is usually an area of weakness for these students, they build more understanding
about why a procedure works. This allows the student to apply that understanding instead of
merely memorizing when to use a rule.
This echoed a study in 2005 by Witzel, which involved using the CRA method to teach
algebra in an inclusive classroom. Witzel believed that when students are able to use concrete
materials in mathematics and involve a variety of sensory input, they are more likely to
remember the order of a procedure. And even further, Witzel claimed when students use
pictorial representations along with the concrete materials, they will be able to construct
drawings that mimic the concrete manipulations they have practiced in order to solve more
difficult math problems. These drawings act as an additional tool for students to use when they

WTS 1 and 2

page 11 of 23

encounter math problems with an unfamiliar structure. Witzel found that these methods of
instruction proved to be beneficial to students with a wide variety in math abilities, not just those
who struggled.
Flores (2009) also tested the CRA method by using it to teach at-risk students subtraction
with regrouping. Flores determined that the CRA method provides students with greater access
to the general education curriculum (p. 196). With increased expectations for students to meet
graduation requirements and the pressure to ensure all students are career or college ready,
Flores concluded that instruction using CRA methods provides students with disabilities the
tools to complete high school exit exams and so obtain a high school diploma, as well as advance
to higher levels of education (p. 196). As students age, the mathematics they encounter
becomes more abstract and harder to understand, especially when they lack foundational
framework. Students cannot possibly be expected to understand topics such as algebra or
geometry when they do not fully understand place value or what a fraction really means.
With all this evidence supporting the use of the CRA method, some might be confused as
to why it is not more widely used in schools today. Some educators may feel that using concrete
manipulatives with older students is too babyish or a waste of time. It is true that these lessons
take significant time to develop and significant time to present to students. In a 2012 study done
by Mancl, Miller, and Kennedy, who also used the CRA method to teach subtraction with
regrouping, it was noted that for three out of the five students involved, at least one lesson had to
be repeated. With the increased standards that students are expected to master, teachers may feel
that there is not enough time to spend repeating lessons, no matter how essential for
understanding. But with that said, Mancl et al. also noted that the lessons that needed to be
repeated often dealt with very basic math concepts, such as place value. This further supports

WTS 1 and 2

page 12 of 23

the idea that students need to have these experiences with early math concepts in order to build
the foundational framework that will lead them to greater math success in the future. The CRA
method seems to be a strategy that is easy to implement in a smaller setting and effective for
students who struggle with math.
Research Implications
My essential guide to research question was, how does the use of visual representations
impact growth in mathematical computation for students with learning disabilities? Before this
school year, I had already recognized the need to provide more visual based supports to my
students. When collaborating with teachers who instructed my former students, I would often
become frustrated by the fact that students seemed to forget skills they had previously
demonstrated proficiency in. I knew that I needed to find new ways to help make concepts
stick with students so they are able to move on to more challenging concepts instead of relearning concepts after they leave my classroom.
The research suggests that visual supports could be an additional tool my students will be
able to use in order to build conceptual understanding that stays with them year after year. With
the support of my districts math coordinator, I was able to come up with some ideas and tasks
for students to build the framework that they will be able to apply all year in their targeted math
instruction and the general education curriculum.
Research-based Action Plan
Action Plan Summary Outline
1. Design lessons and activities that use visual support models to introduce math
concepts by collaborating with other special education teachers and the district math coordinator.

WTS 1 and 2

page 13 of 23

2. Deliver instruction that uses visual support models by (a) modeling the use of visual
support models, (b) allow students guided practice using visual support models, and (c) give
students independent practice with visual support models.
3. Assess student understanding of mathematical concepts before and after by using
teacher created assessments.
Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
1. Standardized goal: CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.5.NBT.A.3: Read, write, and compare
decimals to thousandths.
2. Targeted learning objective: Construct a visual model and use to compare two decimal
numbers using greater than, less than, or equal to.
Task(s) and Essential Proficiency Criteria for Targeted Learning Objective(s)
1. Task: Students will accurately compare two numbers involving decimal values.
2. Criteria that Prove Proficiency in Meeting Targeted Learning Objective(s)
a. Student demonstrates mastery by scoring at least 80% on assessment.
b. Student shows ability to correctly represent decimal values using visual
model as measured by formative assessment throughout the unit.
Method(s) to Assess Progress of Proficiency for Targeted Learning Objective(s)
1. Teachers and peers will give students immediate feedback during whole group
practice throughout the unit.
2. Students will complete formative assessments throughout the unit.
3. Students will be given an end of the unit assessment to demonstrate mastery.
Post-assessments
Instructional Insights Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)

WTS 1 and 2

page 14 of 23

One major concern that I had before starting was that students would find these methods
elementary and not actively participate. Most of my students were more than willing to use base
ten blocks and enjoyed coloring in picture representations. As this is something they typically
are not invited to do in a math class, I think they found novelty in the different approach.
During implementation, I found that I had the most success when I used my Smart Board
to present content. This way, I was able to model for students as they worked on their own work
at their table. The Smart Board also allowed for several opportunities to practice with very little
down time in between problems. I have found that having multiple opportunities for practice is
important for students with learning disabilities. I also could quickly insert additional practice in
areas that I observed students struggling with. This cut down on losing instructional time, as I
was able to add problems with just a few clicks of my computer mouse.
This also kept many of my students more engaged than I had previously experienced with
more traditional paper and pencil work. They were more willing to participate when they had
the chance to come up and use the Smart Board. This led to several class discussions about the
problems students completed, and students were able to respond to and critique each others
work. This differed from classes in the past, where I would have to guide the discussion with
leading questions. During these discussions, I was able to address common misconceptions as a
whole class instead of having to address each individual student after reviewing their work. This
was an unintended bonus of the task, as it also addressed a Common Core Mathematical Practice
Standard that has been stressed in our school.
One big component of using the CRA method is tying each step together in order to build
understanding. This was an area that I worried I would struggle with, but by having the visual
models up on the board, I was able to display the abstract notation along with the picture easily.

WTS 1 and 2

page 15 of 23

After I modeled it, students were able to gain practice in this same way to link new ideas (the
abstract notation) to ideas they were already familiar with (pictorial representations). Students
were also able to link different visual representations together, and later in the unit they chose the
one that made the most sense to them.
Comparison of Student Performance Related to Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
The student learning objective focused on number sense involving numbers with decimal
values. However, I realized I had to go back and re-teach place value in order for students to
make sense of any decimal numbers. On the pre-assessment for identifying different place
values, only one student scored above mastery level (80%). After completing the place value
assessment, only one student scored below mastery level (80%). The student who scored below
mastery level scored 70% and is the only student in the class with a documented cognitive
disability.
I found similar success with comparing decimal numbers after completing a unit on place
value. On the pre-assessment, five students scored below mastery. On the post-assessment of
comparing numbers with decimal values, five out of seven students scored above mastery level
(Artifact C). Once these foundational ideas were formed for students, it appeared easy for them
to link new ideas to familiar concepts.
Comparison of Learning Environment While Learning Targeted Objective(s)
Overall, I was pleased with the outcome of my new instructional techniques. Following
the unit, I had students take another survey to rate how they felt about the new concepts they had
learned and the strategies they used to learn them (Artifact D). It was elevating to me to see that
all of my students had positive responses to the question regarding how they felt about decimals
following instruction.

WTS 1 and 2

page 16 of 23

From the survey, I found that the all of the students rated at least two of the visual and
concrete strategies employed helpful to their understanding of decimal concepts. All but one
student rated that their overall understanding of decimal concepts improved over the course of
the unit. This is of utmost importance to me, as many of my students in the past have displayed
very little confidence in math. Although no data was taken on this, I also felt that the average
number of redirects I gave students during instruction went down significantly when using these
new instructional strategies.
Reflection of Entire Learning Process
The essential question guiding this entry was how does the use of visual representations
impact growth in mathematical computation for students with learning disabilities? Using visual
representations takes a significant amount of time prepping and presenting to students. The
intense focus on visual supports was new to many of the students and unfamiliar for them to use
in a middle school classroom. However, the use of visual supports has proved to increase their
conceptual understanding, so it was worth all of the time involved. In addition to the increased
scores I saw from my students, the use of visual representations had unintended benefits.
Students were more engaged in learning, displayed fewer behaviors, and had an overall better
attitude about my class.
What Worked and Why
1. Using the Smart Board to present the majority of my visual content lessons has led to
more student engagement and peer-to-peer discussion.
2. Using whole group practice in the classroom facilitated a lot of discussions that
allowed me to address common misconceptions that many students have all at the same time.

WTS 1 and 2

page 17 of 23

3. Using student feedback surveys has been helpful to assess which concrete and visual
strategies the students find most helpful and will drive which types of models I choose to use in
future units.
What Did Not Work and Why
1. Not all students demonstrated mastery of the subject. It would be nice to give more
one-on-one instruction to students who do not meet mastery requirements to make sure they have
the necessary conceptual framework to prepare them for more difficult mathematics.
2. The unit took longer than I had previously planned, but I really feel that the
foundational work students have done now will cut down time in future units as I will not have to
spend as much time re-teaching basic concepts.
My Next Steps
1. I will continue to use the CRA method as I teach other foundational units for my
students, such as fractions.
2. I will continue to review these conceptual building blocks with students to keep them
fresh in their minds as we progress throughout the year.
3. I will assess these skills periodically through the year to gauge retention of the
material.
In conclusion, visual supports in the special education math classroom proved to be
effective with decimal number sense. To continue to build number sense with my students, I will
use visual supports with all math concepts during the year. I feel that the changes I have made
will lead to a highly effective classroom.

WTS 1 and 2

page 18 of 23

References
Flores, M. (2009). Using the Concrete-Representational-Abstract sequence to teach subtraction
with regrouping to students at risk for failure. Remedial and Special Education, 3(3),
195-207. DOI: 10.1177/0741932508327467
Mancl, D., Miller, S., & Kennedy, M. (2012). Using the Concrete-Representational-Abstract
sequence with integrated strategy instruction to teach subtraction with regrouping to
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(4),
152-166.
Strickland, T., & Maccini, P. (2012). The effects of the Concrete-Representational-Abstract
integration strategy on the ability of students with learning disabilities to multiply linear
expressions within area problems. Remedial and Special Education, 34(3), 142-153. DOI:
10.1177/0741932512441712
Witzel, B. (2005). Using CRA to teach algebra to students with math difficulties in inclusive
settings. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3(2), 49-60.
Witzel, B., Riccomini, P., & Schneider, E. (2008). Implementing CRA with secondary students
with learning disabilities in mathematics. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(5), 270276. DOI: 10.1177/1053451208314734

WTS 1 and 2

page 19 of 23

Artifact A: Pre-Assessment Scores

Entire class results on pre-test given in the beginning of the school year in two areas.

Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
Student 5
Student 6
Student 7

Identify Place Value

17%
0%
17%
17%
0%
0%
83%

Compare Decimals
0%
80%
60%
80%
40%
60%
60%

Artifact B: Pre-Unit Survey Answer

This shows examples of student responses from a survey assessing their feelings about decimals
before starting the unit.

Student 2: showed low growth over the course of the unit

Student 3: showed medium growth over the course of the unit

WTS 1 and 2

page 20 of 23

Student 5: showed high growth over the course of the unit

Artifact C: Post-Assessment Scores

Entire class results on post-test given at the end of the unit in two areas.

Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
Student 5
Student 6
Student 7

Identify Place Value

90%
70%
80%
90%
80%
90%
100%

Compare Decimals
55%
70%
85%
85%
95%
85%
100%

Artifact D: Post-Unit Survey Answers

This shows examples of student responses from a survey assessing their feelings about decimals
after completing the unit.

Low growth: score went down 10% from the pre-test.

WTS 1 and 2

Medium growth: score went up 25% from pretest

page 21 of 23

WTS 1 and 2

High growth: score went up 55% from pretest

page 22 of 23

WTS 1 and 2
Student
Assessment
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

Rubric Category
Pre-assessments
Research and Implications, Action Plan
Post-assessments of Instruction (compares to pre-assessment)
Post-assessments of Student Performance, Learning Environment
Reflection of Entire Learning Process
Artifacts
Conventions and Writing Proficiency
Overall Evidence of Masters Level Teaching Attributes

page 23 of 23