Differential Application of a Cue Card Strategy for Solving Fraction Problems: Exploring Instructional Utility of the Cognitive Assessment System.

This study explored the differential application of a self-regulatory strategy on math performance among students with learning disabilities and diverse planning abilities. The Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) was administered in order to indentify students who exhibited diverse cognitive profiles. Three eighth grade students met these criteria for selection. Participants were taught to use a cue card strategy for solving fraction problems. A multiple baseline design was employed, and results indicated that all students improved on fraction probes as a function of using cue cards. The student with high planning ability demonstrated consistent performance on fraction probes while the student with low planning ability applied the cue card haphazardly. The student who performed average in planning performed consistently well on fraction probes but took more trials to reach criterion levels than the high planner did. Implications for educators regarding the instructional utility of the CAS Planning measure are d iscussed.

Instructional utility has been defined as the extent to which assessment is related to instructional outcomes for students (Hayes, Nelson, Jarrett, 1987). Students with learning disabilities often have diverse cognitive profiles that may influence their reactions to various types of instruction (Swanson & Hoskyn, 1999). While the past decade of aptitude and treatment interaction studies have received much criticism (Good, Vollmer, Creek, Katz, & Chowdhri, 1993; Glutting, McDermott, & Knold, 1997), performance data obtained from new cognitive assessment measures, such as the Cognitive Assessment System, may be helpful in designing appropriate instruction that contributes to academic outcomes for students (Braden & Kratochwill, 1997).

Cognitive Assessment System

The Cognitive Assessment System (CAS: Naglieri & Das, 1997) is a new cognitive processing instrument that is increasingly being used as part of a comprehensive assessment battery for diagnosing students with learning disabilities. Rather than focusing on the measurement of general intellectual abilities (i.e., global verbal and nonverbal reasoning abilities), the CAS measures four types of cognitive processes which are planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive processes. According to Naglieri and Das (1997), planning has not exclusively been defined as an individual's ability to formulate a strategy but has also been defined as a person's ability to execute and verify an approach for solving problems. Planning processes can be thought of as the glue that runs across other cognitive processes and permits their execution (Das, Kar, & Parilla, 1996). The consistency at which strategies are executed over time require self-monitoring behaviors (Reid, 1997). Closely related to planning are attention process es that involve both sustained and selective efforts toward completing tasks while inhibiting distracters (Naglieri & Das, 1997).

Simultaneous and successive processes are referred to as the coding mechanisms of cognitive functioning. Simultaneous processes involve integration of separate stimuli into a conceptual whole, and successive processes involve arranging information in an orderly, linear manner. These four processes make up the Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive (Pass: Das, Naglieri, & Kirby, 1994) cognitive theory of how children encode information received from their environment and execute mental functions that manifest themselves into observable behaviors.

While there are other instruments that purport to measure simultaneous and successive processing (e.g., K-ABC; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983), there are very few formal measures of students' ability to plan. The CAS is one of the first psychometrically sound cognitive functioning instruments that is comprised of a Planning scale. Validity studies showed that performance on the Planning scale correlated highly with academic achievement (Naglieri & Das, 1997).

Linking Planning Performance to Instruction