In this article, we describe results of a reanalysis of two randomized studies that tested the effects of enhanced anchored instruction (EAI) on the fractions computation performance of students in special education resource rooms and inclusive mathematics classrooms. Latent class analysis and latent transition analysis classified students according to error subtypes and tracked their performance patterns. Results indicated that EAI was more effective than business as usual in reducing combining errors (e.g., adding denominators) and denominator errors (e.g., not finding common denominator) of students with disabilities (SWD) and students without disabilities in both settings. SWD in inclusive classrooms scored higher on the pretest than SWD in resource rooms, but EAI reduced the disparity on the posttest. An important additional finding revealed that the SWD who received more support from special education teachers in inclusive classrooms scored higher and made fewer errors than the SWD who were provided only limited support.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaileyD. H.HoardM. K.NugentL.GearyD. C. (2012). Competence with fractions predicts gains in mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 447–455. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.06.004
2.
BehrM. J.LeshR.PostT. R.SilverE. A. (1983). Rational number concepts. In LeshR.LandauM. (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematical concepts and processes (pp. 91–126). New York, NY: Academic Press.
3.
BottgeB. A. (2001). Reconceptualizing math problem solving for low-achieving students. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 102–112. doi:10.1177/074193250102200204
4.
BottgeB. A.HeinrichsM.ChanS.SerlinR. (2001). Anchoring adolescents’ understanding of math concepts in rich problem-solving environments. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 299–314. doi:10.1177/074193250102200505
5.
BottgeB. A.MaX.GassawayL.TolandM.ButlerM.ChoS. J. (2014). Effects of blended instructional models on math performance. Exceptional Children, 80, 423–437. doi:10.1177/0014402914527240
6.
BottgeB. A.RuedaE.GrantT. S.StephensA. C.LaRoqueP. T. (2010). Anchoring problem-solving and computation instruction in context-rich learning environments. Exceptional Children, 76, 417–437. doi:10.1177/001440291007600403
7.
BottgeB. A.RuedaE.LaRoqueP. T.SerlinR. C.KwonJ. (2007). Integrating reform-oriented math instruction in special education settings. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 96–109. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00234.x
8.
BottgeB. A.TolandM. D.GassawayL.ButlerM.ChooS.GriffenA. K.MaX. (2015). Impact of enhanced anchored instruction in inclusive math classrooms. Exceptional Children, 81, 158–175. doi:10.1177/0014402914551742
9.
BrunerJ. S. (1960). The process of education. New York, NY: Random House.
10.
CharalambousC. Y.Pitta-PantaziD. (2007). Drawing on a theoretical model to study students’ understanding of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 293–316. doi:10.1007/s10649-006-9036-2
11.
ClarkeD. M.RocheA. (2009). Students’ fraction comparison strategies as a window into robust understanding and possible pointers for instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72, 127–138. doi:10.1007/s10649-009-9198-9
12.
CollinsL. M.LanzaS. T. (2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis: With applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
13.
CookM.FriendM. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for effective practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(2), 1–12.
14.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2015). Rethinking service delivery for students with significant learning problems: Developing and implementing intensive instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 105–111. doi:10.1177/0741932514558337
15.
FuchsL. S.SchumacherR. F.SterbaS. K.LongJ.NamkungJ.MaloneA.. . . ChangasP. (2014). Does working memory moderate the effects of fraction intervention? An aptitude-treatment interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 499–514. doi:10.1037/a0034341
16.
GearyD. C. (2006). Development of mathematical understanding. In KuhlD.SieglerR. S. (Vol. Eds.), Cognition, perception, and language (Vol .2, pp. 777–810). New York, NY: Wiley.
17.
GillespieJ.KanterP. F. (2000). Every day counts calendar math. Wilmington, MA: Great Source Education.
18.
HansenN.JordanN. C.FernandezE.SieglerR. S.FuchsL.GerstenR.MicklosD. (2015). General and math-specific predictors of sixth-graders’ knowledge of fractions. Cognitive Development, 35, 34–49. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2015.02.001
19.
HourcadeJ. J.BauwensJ. (2001). Cooperative teaching: The renewal of teachers. Clearing House, 74, 242–247. doi:10.1080/00098650109599200
20.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § § 1400 et seq. (2006 & Supp. V. 2011).
21.
KierenT. E. (1980). Knowing rational numbers: Ideas and symbols. In LindquistM. (Ed.), Selected issues in mathematics education (pp. 68–81). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
22.
KurzA.ElliottS. N.LemonsC. J.ZigmondN.KlooA.KettlerR. J. (2014). Assessing opportunity-to-learn for students with disabilities in general and special education classes. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40, 24–39. doi:10.1177/1534508414522685
23.
LanzaS. T.DziakJ. J.HuangL.WagnerA. T.CollinsL. M. (2015). Proc LCA & Proc LTA users’ guide (Version 1.3.2). University Park, PA: Methodology Center. Retrieved from http://methodology.psu.edu
MazzoccoM. M. M.MyersG. F.LewisK. E.HanichL. B.MurphyM. M. (2013). Limited knowledge of fraction representations differentiates middle school students with mathematics learning disability (dyscalculia) versus low mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115, 371–387. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.01.005
26.
McLachlanG.PeelD. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York, NY: Wiley.
27.
MisquittaR. (2011). A review of the literature: Fraction instruction for struggling learners in mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 109–119. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00330.x
28.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): 2015 mathematics assessment. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
29.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): 1990, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015 mathematics assessments. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/
National Governors Association for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards in mathematics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math
33.
NylundK. L.AsparouhovT.MuthénB. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 535–569. doi:10.1080/10705510701575396
34.
PitkethlyA.HuntingR. (1996). A review of recent research in the area of initial fraction concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30, 5–38. doi:10.1007/BF00163751
35.
RadatzH. (1979). Error analysis in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 10, 163–172. doi:10.2307/748804
36.
ReaP.McLaughlinV.Walther-ThomasC. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68, 203–222. doi:10.1177/001440290206800204
37.
SalendS. J. (2011). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices. Boston, MA: Pearson.
38.
SchoenfeldA. H. (1989). Teaching mathematical thinking and problem solving. In ResnickL. B.KlopferL. E. (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 83–103). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
39.
SchwartzG. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464. doi:10.1214/aos/1176344136
40.
ShinM.BryantD. P. (2015). A synthesis of mathematical and cognitive performances of students with mathematics learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 96–112. doi:10.1177/0022219413508324
41.
SieglerR. S.PykeA. A. (2013). Developmental and individual differences in understanding fractions. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1994–2004. doi:10.1037/a0031200
42.
SieglerR. S.DuncanG. J.Davis-KeanP. E.DuckworthK.ClaessensA.EngelM.. . . ChenM. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23, 691–697. doi:10.1177/0956797612440101
43.
SieglerR. S.ThompsonC. A.SchneiderM. (2011). An integrated theory of whole number and fractions development. Cognitive Psychology, 62, 273–296. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.03.001
44.
SolisM.VaughnS.SwansonE.McCulleyL. (2012). Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 498–510. doi:10.1002/pits.21606
45.
VaughnS.Shay SchummJ.ArguellesM. E. (1997). The ABCDEs of co-teaching. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 30(2), 4–10. doi:10.1177/004005999703000201
46.
YeA.ResnickI.HansenN.RodriguesJ.RinneL.JordanN. C. (2016). Pathways to fraction learning: Numerical abilities mediate the relation between early cognitive competencies and later fraction knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 152, 242–263. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2016.08.001
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
