Research suggests that students with learning disabilities have significant difficulty acquiring and retaining math skills. A variety of factors seem to be contributing to the poor math performance of these individuals. The purpose of this article is to discuss these factors and make recommendations that will enhance the likelihood of better math performance. The article begins with a discussion of national reform movements that have influenced math instruction (i.e., National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards, minimum competency testing, graduation requirements, inclusion). Next, learner characteristics are reviewed, then issues related to math instruction are described. Finally, ways to improve current practices in math education are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ackerman, P. T., Anhalt, J. M., & Dykman, R. A. (1986). Arithmetic automatization failure in children with attention and reading disorders: Associations and sequilae. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 222–232.
2.
Baroody, A. J., & Hume, J. (1991). Meaningful mathematics instruction: The case of fractions. Remedial and Special Education, 22, (3), 54–68.
3.
Bartel, N. R. (1982). Problems in mathematics achievement. In D. D. Hammill & N. R. Bartel (Eds.), Teaching children with learning and behavior problems (3rd ed., pp. 173–198). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
Bateman, B. (1992). Learning disabilities: The changing landscape. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 29–36.
5.
Bos, C. S., & Vaughn, S. (1994). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
Brownell, M. T., Mellard, D. F., & Deshler, D. D. (1993). Differences in the learning and transfer performances between students with learning disabilities and other low-achieving students on problemsolving tasks. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 138–156.
7.
Carnine, D. (1991). Curricular interventions for teaching higher order thinking to all students: Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 261–269.
8.
Carnine, D. (1992). The missing link in improving schools—reforming educational leaders. Direct Instruction News, 11, (3), 25–35.
9.
Carnine, D. (1994). Ideologies, practices, and their implications for special education. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 356–367.
10.
Carnine, D. W., & Kameenui, E. J. (1990). The General Education Initiative and children with special needs: A false dilemma in the face of true problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 141–144, 148.
11.
Cawley, J. F., Baker-Kroczynski, S., & Urban, A. (1992). Seeking excellence in mathematics education for students with mild disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24, 40–43.
12.
Cawley, J. F., Fitzmaurice-Hayes, A., & Shaw, R. (1988). Mathematics for the mildly handicapped—A guide to curriculum and instruction.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
13.
Cawley, J. F., & Miller, J. H. (1989). Cross-sectional comparisons of the mathematical performance of children with learning disabilities: Are we on the right track toward comprehensive programming?. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 250–254, 259.
14.
Cawley, J. F., Miller, J. H., & School, B. A. (1987). A brief inquiry of arithmetic word-problem solving among learning disabled secondary students. Learning Disabilities Focus, 2, 87–93.
15.
Cawley, J. F., & Parmar, R. S. (1990). Issues in mathematics curriculum for handicapped students. Academic Therapy, 25, 507–521.
16.
Chambers, D. L. (1994). The right algebra for all. Educational Leadership, 51, (6), 85–86.
17.
Cherkes-Julkowski, M. (1985). Information processing: A cognitive view. In J. Cawley (Ed.), Cognitive strategies and mathematics for the learning disabled (pp. 117–138). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
18.
Cohen, S. B., Safran, J., & Polloway, E. (1980). Minimum competency testing: Implications for mildly retarded students. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 15, 250–255.
19.
Conte, R. (1991). Attention disorders. In B. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (pp. 60–103). San Diego: Academic Press.
20.
Dixon, B. (1994). Research guidelines for selecting mathematics curriculum. Effective School Practices, 13, (2), 47–55.
21.
Dossey, J. A., Mullis, I. V. S., Lindquist, M. M., & Chambers, D. L. (1988). The mathematics report card: Are we measuring up?Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 300 206)
22.
Engelmann, S., Carnine, D., & Steely, D. G. (1991). Making connections in mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 292–303.
23.
Englert, C. S., Culatta, B. E., & Horn, D. G. (1987). Influence of irrelevant information in addition word problems on problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 29–36.
24.
Fleischner, J. E., Garnett, K., & Shepherd, M. (1982). Proficiency in arithmetic basic fact computation by learning disabled and nondisabled children. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 4, 47–55.
25.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1988). An evaluation of the Adaptive Learning Environments Model. Exceptional Children, 55, 115–127.
26.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294–309.
27.
Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The efforts of stratification in secondary schools. Review of Educational Research, 57, 415–435.
28.
Garnett, K. (1992). Developing fluency with basic number facts: Intervention for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 210–216.
29.
Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367–395.
30.
Greenstein, J., & Strains, P. S. (1977). The utility of the Keymath Diagnostic Arithmetic Test for adolescent learning disabled students. Psychology in the Schools, 14, 275–282.
31.
Goldman, S. R. (1989). Strategy instruction in mathematics. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 43–55.
32.
Hallahan, D. P., Keller, C. E., McKinney, J. D., Lloyd, J. W., & Bryan, T. (1988). Examining the research base of the Regular Education Initiative: Efficacy studies and the ALEM. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 29–35.
33.
Hofmeister, A. M. (1993). Elitism and reform in school mathematics. Remedial and Special Education, 14, (6), 8–13.
34.
Howell, K. W., Fox, S. L., & Morehead, M. K. (1993). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
35.
Hutchinson, N. L. (1993). Students with disabilities and mathematics education reform—Let the dialogue begin. Remedial and Special Education, 14, (6), 20–23.
36.
Kavale, K. A., Fuchs, D., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Setting the record straight on learning disability and low achievement: Implications for policy making. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 70–77.
37.
Kelly, B., Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1990). Student error patterns as a function of curriculum design: Teaching fractions to remedial high school students and high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 23–29.
38.
Kulak, A. G. (1993). Parallels between math and reading disability: Common issues and approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 666–673.
39.
Lapointe, A. E., Mead, N. A., & Phillips, G. W. (1989). A world of differences: An international assessment of mathematics and science.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 309 068)
40.
Lee, W. M., & Hudson, F. G. (1981). A comparison of verbal problem-solving in arithmetic of learning disabled and non-learning disabled seventh grade males (Research Report No. 43). Lawrence: Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities, University of Kansas.
41.
Lerner, J. (1993). Learning disabilities (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
42.
Lichtenstein, S. (1993). Transition from school to adulthood: Case studies of adults with learning disabilities who dropped out of school. Exceptional Children, 59, 336–347.
43.
Lovitt, T. C. (1989). Introduction to learning disabilities.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
44.
Masters, L. F., Mori, B. A., & Mori, A. A. (1993). Teaching secondary students with mild learning and behavior problems.Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
45.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Shiah, S. (1991). Mathematics instruction for learning disabled students: A review of research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 89–98.
46.
Mather, N., & Roberts, R. (1994). Learning disabilities: A field in danger of extinction?. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 49–58.
47.
McLeod, T., & Armstrong, S. (1982). Learning disabilities in mathematics-skill deficits and remedial approaches at the intermediate and secondary grades. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 305–311.
48.
Mercer, C. D. (1992). Students with learning disabilities (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
49.
Mercer, C. D., Harris, C. A., & Miller, S. P. (1993). Reforming reforms in mathematics. Remedial and Special Education, 14, (6), 14–19.
50.
Mercer, C. D., Jordan, L., & Miller, S. P. (1994). Implications of constructivism for teaching math to students with moderate to mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 290–306.
51.
Mercer, C. D., & Miller, S. P. (1992). Teaching students with learning problems in math to acquire, understand, and apply basic math facts. Remedial and Special Education, 33, (3), 19–35, 61.
52.
Montague, M., & Applegate, B. (1993). Middle school students' mathematical problem solving: An analysis of thinkaloud protocols. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 19–30.
53.
Montague, M., Bos, C., & Doucette, M. (1991). Affective, cognitive, and metacognitive attributes of eighth-grade mathematical problem solvers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 145–151.
54.
National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics. (1988). Twelve components of essential mathematics.Minneapolis, MN: Author.
55.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
56.
Parmar, R. S., & Cawley, J. F. (1991). Challenging the routines and passivity that characterize arithmetic instruction for children with mild handicaps. Remedial and Special Education, 12, (5), 23–32, 43.
57.
Parmar, R. S., Cawley, J. F., & Miller, J. H. (1994). Differences in mathematics performance between students with learning disabilities and students with mild retardation. Exceptional Children, 60, 549–563.
58.
Resnick, L., & Resnick, D. (1985). Standards, curriculum and performance: A historical perspective. Educational Researcher, 14, 5–20.
59.
Rivera, D. M. (1993). Examining mathematics reform and the implications for students with mathematics disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 34, (6), 24–27.
60.
Roberts, C., & Zubrick, S. (1992). Factors influencing the social status of children with mild academic disabilities in regular classrooms. Exceptional Children, 59, 192–202.
61.
Romberg, T. A. (1993). NCTM's Standards: A rallying flag for mathematics teachers. Educational Leadership, 50, (5), 36–41.
62.
Scheid, K. (1990). Cognitive-based methods for teaching mathematics to students with learning problems.Columbus, OH: LINC Resources.
63.
Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1988). Implementing the Regular Education Initiative in secondary schools: A different ball game. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 36–42.
64.
Semmel, M. I., Abernathy, T. V., Butera, G., & Lesar, S. (1991). Teacher perceptions of the Regular Education Initiative. Exceptional Children, 58, 9–24.
65.
Silbert, J., & Carnine, D. (1990). The mathematics curriculum—Standards, textbooks, and pedagogy: A case study of fifth grade division. ADI News, 10, (1), 39–47.
66.
Silver, L. B. (1991). The Regular Education Initiative: A déjà vu remembered with sadness and concern. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 389–390.
67.
Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1991). Instructional and curricular requisites of mainstreamed students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 354–359, 353.
68.
Slavin, R. (1991). Educational psychology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
69.
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1989). What works for students at risk: A research synthesis. Educational Leadership, 46, (5), 4–13.
70.
Smith, C. R. (1994). Learning disabilities: The interaction of learner, task, and setting (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
71.
Snell, M. E. (1991). Schools are for all kids: The importance of integration for students with severe disabilities and their peers. In J. W. Lloyd, A. C. Repp, & N. N. Singh (Eds.), The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. 133–148). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
72.
Sovchik, R. J. (1989). Teaching mathematics to children.New York: Harper & Row.
73.
Sprick, R. S. (1987). Solutions to elementary discipline problems [Audiotapes]. Eugene, OR: Teaching Strategies.
74.
Strang, J. D., & Rourke, B. P. (1985). Arithmetic disability subtypes: The neuropsychological significance of specific arithmetical impairment in childhood. In B. P. Rourke (Ed.), Neuropsychology of learning disabilities: Essentials of subtype analysis (pp. 167–183). New York: Guilford Press.
75.
Swanson, H. L. (1990). Instruction derived from the strategy deficit model: Overview of principles and procedures. In T. Scruggs & B. Wong (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 34–65). New York: Springer-Verlag.
76.
Torgesen, J. (1990). Studies of children with learning disabilities who perform poorly on memory span tasks. In J. K. Torgesen (Ed.), Cognitive and behavioral characteristics of children with learning disabilities (pp. 41–58). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
77.
Tyson, H., & Woodward, A. (1989). Why students aren't learning very much from textbooks. Educational Leadership, 47, (3), 14–17.
78.
Usiskin, Z. (1993). Lessons from the Chicago mathematics project. Educational Leadership, 50, (8), 14–18.
79.
Wagner, M. (1990, April). The school programs and school performance of secondary students classified as learning disabled: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Paper presented at the meetings of Division G, American Educational Research Association, Boston.
80.
Warner, M., Alley, G., Schumaker, J., Deshler, D., & Clark, F. (1980). An epidemiological study of learning disabled adolescents in secondary schools: Achievement and ability, socioeconomic status and school experiences (Report No. 13). Lawrence: University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
81.
Wilson, C. L., & Sindelar, P. T. (1991). Direct instruction in math word problems: Students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 57, 512–519.
82.
Woodward, J. (1991). Procedural knowledge in mathematics: The role of the curriculum. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 242–251.
83.
Zawaiza, T. R. W., & Gerber, M. M. (1993). Effects of explicit instruction on math word-problem solving by community college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 64–79.
84.
Zentall, S. S., & Ferkis, M. A. (1993). Mathematical problem solving for children with ADHD, with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 6–18.
85.
Zentall, S. S., & Zentall, T. R. (1983). Optimal stimulation: A model of disordered activity and performance in normal and deviant children. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 446–471.
