The purpose of this article was to examine the sustained effort to reform K through 12 mathematics instruction in this country over the last 10 years and the implications of this reform for students with learning disabilities. We begin by describing three forces that have driven mathematics reform: shifting theoretical paradigms, disappointing levels of mathematics performance of students in the United States, and the impact of rapidly changing technologies. We then discuss concerns about this reform from the special education community. In the second half of the article, we provide synthesized special education research relevant to mathematics reform, along with thoughts about future directions in mathematics education for students with learning disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Atkin, M., & Black, P. (1997). Policy perils of international comparison. Phi Delta Kappan,79, 22—28.
2.
Australian Educational Council. (1990). A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools. Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Curriculum Corp.
3.
Ball, D. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93, 373—397.
4.
Baroody, A., & Hume, J. (1991). Meaningful mathematics instruction: The case of fractions. Remedial and Special Education, 12(3), 54—68.
5.
Baxter, J., Woodward, J., & Olson, D. (2001). Effects of reform-based mathematics instruction in five third grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal , 101, 529—548.
6.
Beatty, A. (Ed.). (1997). Learning from TIMSS: Results of the third international mathematics and science study . Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
7.
Becker, J., & Jacob, B. (2000). The politics of California school mathematics: The anti-reform of 1997—99. Phi Delta Kappan,81, 529—537.
8.
Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America's public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
9.
Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (Eds.). (1990). Interactive teaching and learning: Instructional practices for teaching content and strategic knowledge . New York: Springer-Verlag.
10.
Bottge, B., & Hasselbring, T. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children, 59, 545—556.
11.
Bracey, G. (1997). Setting the record straight: Responses to misconceptions about public education in the United States. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development .
12.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
13.
Bransford, J., Sherwood, R., Vye, N., & Rieser, J. (1986). Teaching thinking and problem solving. American Psychologist, 41, 1078—1089.
14.
Brownell, W. (1945). When is arithmetic meaningful?Journal of Educational Research, 38, 481—498.
15.
Carnine, D. (1992). Expanding the notion of teachers' rights: Access to tools that work. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(1), 7—13.
16.
Carnine, D., Dixon, R., & Silbert, J. (1998). Effective strategies for teaching mathematics . In E. Kameenui & D. Carnine (Eds.), E fective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (pp. 93—112). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
17.
Carnine, D., Jitendra, A., & Silbert, J. (1997). A descriptive analysis of mathematics curricular materials from a pedagogical perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 66—81.
18.
Carnine, D., Jones, E., & Dixon, R. (1994). Mathematics: Educational tools for diverse learners . School Psychology Review, 23, 406—427.
19.
Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
20.
Case, L., Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1992). Improving the mathematical problem solving skills of students with learning disabilities: Self-regulated strategy development . The Journal of Special Education, 26, 1—19.
21.
Cobb, P. (1999, April). From representations to symbolizing: Individual and communal development in the mathematics classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association , Montreal, Canada.
22.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1993). Discourse, mathematical thinking, and classroom practice. In E. Forman, N. Minick, & C. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 91—119). New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
Cohen, D., McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (1993). Teaching for understanding. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24.
Covington, M. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Cybriwsky, C., & Schuster, J. (1990). Using constant time delay procedures to teach multiplication facts. Remedial and Special Education, 11(1), 54—59.
26.
Darch, C., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1984). Explicit instruction in mathematics problem solving . Journal of Educational Research, 77, 350—359.
27.
Davis, R., & Maher, C. (1996). A new view of the goals and means for school mathematics . In M. Pugach & C. Warger (Eds.), Curriculum trends, special education, and reform: Refocusing the conversation (pp. 68—83). New York: Teachers College Press.
28.
De Corte, E., Greer, B., & Verschaffel, L. (1996). Mathematics teaching and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 491—549). New York: Macmillan.
29.
Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics . New York: Oxford University Press .
30.
Dixon, R., Carnine, D., Lee, D., Wallin, J., & Chard, D. (1998). Review of high quality experimental mathematics research: Report to the California StateBoard of Education . Eugene, OR: National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators.
31.
Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students' thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23, 167—180.
Forman, E., Minick, N., & Stone, C. (1993). Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development. New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., & Fernstrom, P. (1992). Case-by-case reintegration of students with learning disabilities. Elementary School Journal, 92, 261—281.
35.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., & Fernstrom, P. (1993). A conservative approach to special education reform: Mainstreaming through transenvironmental programming and curriculum-based measurement. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 149—177.
36.
Geary, D. (1990). A componential analysis of an early learning deficit in mathematics. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 363—383.
37.
Geary, D. (1994). Children's mathematical development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
38.
Geary, D., Bow-Thomas, C., & Yao, Y. (1992). Counting knowledge and skill in cognitive addition: A comparison of normal and mathematically disabled children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 372—391.
39.
Gerber, M., Semmel, D., & Semmel, M. (1994). Computer-based dynamic assessment of multidigit multiplication. Exceptional Children, 61, 114— 125.
40.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (1998). Real world use of scientific concepts: Integrating situated cognition with explicit instruction. Exceptional Children, 65, 23—36.
41.
Gleason, M., Carnine, D., & Boriero, D. (1990). Improving CAI effectiveness with attention to instructional design in teaching story problems to mildly handicapped students . Journal of Special Education Technology, 10(3), 129—136.
42.
Goldman, S., Hasselbring, T., & the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). Achieving meaningful mathematics literacy for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 98— 208.
43.
Goldman, S.R., Pellegrino, J.W., & Mertz, D.L. (1988). Extended practice of basic addition facts: Strategy changes in learning disabled students. Cognition and Instruction , 5, 223—265.
44.
Greeno, J., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15—46). New York: Macmillan.
45.
Greider, W. (1997). One world ready or not: The manic logic of global capitalism. New York: Simon and Schuster.
46.
Grouws, D. (1992). Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.
47.
Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1994). Constructivism: Principles, paradigms, and integration . The Journal of Special Education, 28, 233—247.
48.
Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1996). Constructivism and students with special needs: Issues in the classroom. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 134—137.
49.
Hasselbring, T., Bottge, B., & Goin, L. (1992). Linking procedural and conceptual knowledge to improve mathematical problem-solving in at-risk students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children , Baltimore.
50.
Hasselbring, T.S., Goin, L.I., & Bransford, J.D. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus onExceptional Children, 20(6), 1—7.
51.
Hiebert, J. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
52.
Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM standards . Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 3—19.
53.
Hiebert, J., & Behr, M. (1988). Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (Vol. 2). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
54.
Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Wearne, D., Murray, H., et al. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
55.
Hofmeister, A. (1993). Elitism and reform in school mathematics. Remedial and Special Education, 14(6), 8—13.
56.
Horton, S., Lovitt, T., & White, O. (1992). Teaching mathematics to adolescents classified as educable mentally handicapped: Using calculators to remove the computational onus. Remedial and Special Education, 13(3), 36—61.
57.
Howell, R., Sidorenko, E., & Jurica, J. (1987). The effects of computer use on the acquisition of multiplication facts by a student with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 336—341.
58.
Jitendra, A. (1999). Teaching middle school students with learning disabilities to solve word problems using a schema-based approach. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 50—64.
59.
Jitendra, A., & Xin, A. (1997). Mathematical word problem solving instruction for students with mild disabilities and students at risk for failure: A research synthesis. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 412—438.
60.
Jones, G., Thornton, C., & Toohey, M. (1985). A multi-option program for learning basic addition facts: Case studies and an experimental report. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 319—325.
61.
Kameenui, E., & Carnine, D. (1998). E fective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
62.
Kameenui, E., Chard, D., & Carnine, D. (1996). Response: The new school mathematics and the age-old dilemma of diversity: Cutting or untying the Gordian knot. In M. Pugach & C. Warger (Eds.), Curriculum trends, special education, and reform (pp. 94—106). New York: Teachers College Press.
63.
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.
64.
Kelly, A., & Lesh, R. (2000). Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
65.
Koscinski, S., & Gast, D. (1993). Use of constant time delay in teaching multiplication facts to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(8), 533—544, 567.
66.
Lampert, M. (1986). Knowing, doing, and teaching multiplication. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 305—342.
67.
Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29—63.
68.
Lampert, M., Rittenhouse, P., & Crumbaugh, C. (1996). Agreeing to disagree: Developing sociable mathematics discourse. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development (pp. 731— 764). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
69.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
70.
Linn, R., Baker, E., & Dunbar, S. (1991). Complex performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15—23.
71.
Marks, J., Purdy, C., & Kinney, L. (1958). Teaching arithmetic for understanding. New York: McGraw-Hill.
72.
Mercer, C., Jordan, L., & Miller, S. (1994). Implications of constructivism for teaching math to students with moderate to mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 290—306.
73.
Mercer, C., & Mercer, A. (1997). Teaching students with learning problems (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
74.
Montague, M. (1995). Cognitive instruction and mathematics: Implications for students with learning disorders. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 17(2), 39—49.
75.
Montague, M. (1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 164—177.
76.
Montague, M., & Bos, C. (1986). Cognitive strategy training on verbal math problem solving performance of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 26—33.
77.
Moore, L., & Carnine, D. (1989). A comparison of two approaches to teaching ratios and proportions to remedial and learning disabled students: Active teaching with either basal or empirically validated curriculum design material. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 28—37.
78.
Morrow, L., & Kenney, M. (Eds.). (1998). The teaching and learning of algorithms in school mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
79.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 1989). Curriculum and evaluation NCTM standards for school mathematics . Reston, VA: Author.
80.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2000). Principles and NCTM standards for school mathematics . Reston, VA: Author.
81.
National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education . Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
82.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics ( J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
83.
Nickerson, R. (1988). Counting, computing, and the representation of numbers. Human Factors, 30(2), 181—199.
84.
Nunes, T., Schliemann, A., & Carraher, D. (1993). Street mathematics and school mathematics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
85.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement. ( 1998). Attaining excellence: A TIMSS resource kit. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
86.
Palincsar, A. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. In J. Spence, J. Darley, & D. Foss (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 48, pp. 345—375). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
87.
Parmar, R., & Cawley, J. (1991). Challenging the routines and passivity that characterize arithmetic instruction for children with mild handicaps. Remedial and Special Education, 12(5), 23—32.
88.
Parmar, R., & Cawley, J. (1995). Mathematics curricula frameworks: Goals for general and special education. Focus on learning problems in mathematics,17(2), 50—66.
89.
Patterson, S. (1997). Microprocessors in 2020. Scientific American, 8(1), 86—88.
90.
Pellegrino, J.W., & Goldman, S.J. (1987). Information processing and elementary mathematics . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 23—32.
91.
Prawat, R. (1999). Dewey, Pierce, and the learning paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 47—76.
92.
Putnam, R., deBettencourt, L., & Leinhardt, G. (1990). Understanding of derived-fact strategies in addition and subtraction. Cognition and Instruction, 7(3), 245—285.
93.
Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations. New York : Knopf.
94.
Reid, D. (1998). Scaffolding: A broader view. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 385—396.
95.
Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
96.
Resnick, L. (1988). Treating mathematics as an ill-structured discipline . In R. Charles & E. Silver (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 32—60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
97.
Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understandings (pp. 3—14). London: Falmer Press .
98.
Rieth, H., Bahr, C., Okolo, C., Polsgrove, L., & Eckert, R. (1988). An analysis of the impact of microcomputers on the secondary special education classroom ecology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 425—441.
99.
Romberg, T. (1992). Mathematics learning and teaching: What we have learned in ten years. In C. Collins & J. Mangieri (Eds.), Teaching thinking: Agenda for the twenty-first century (pp. 43—64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
100.
Russell, R., & Ginsburg, H. (1984). Cognitive analysis of children's mathematics difficulties . Cognition and Instruction, 1, 217—244.
101.
Saxe, G. (1992). Studying children's learning in context: Problems and prospects. Journal of the LearningSciences, 2, 215—234.
102.
Schmidt, W., McKnight, C., & Raizen, S. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
103.
Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
104.
Schoenfeld, A. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disaster of “well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 145—166.
105.
Simon, H.A. (1980). Problem solving and education. In D. Tuma & F. Reif (Eds.), Problem solving and education (pp. 81—96). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
106.
Skemp, R. (1987). The psychology of learning mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
107.
Stein, M., & Carnine, D. (1999). Designing and delivering effective mathematics instruction. In R. Stevens (Ed.), Teaching in American schools (pp. 245—270). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
108.
Stein, M., Silbert, J., & Carnine, D. (1997). Designing e fective mathematics instruction: A direct instruction approach (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
109.
Sternberg, R. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
110.
Stevenson, H., & Stigler, J. (1992). The learning gap. New York : Simon and Schuster.
111.
Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.
112.
Stone, C. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. Forman, N. Minick, & C. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 169—183). New York: Oxford University Press.
113.
Stone, C. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 31, 344—364.
114.
Swanson, H. (1988). Toward a metatheory of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 196—209.
115.
Swanson, H. (1989). Strategy instruction: Overview of principles and procedures for effective use. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 12, 3—14.
116.
Swanson, L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York: Guilford Press.
117.
Swetz, F. (1987). Capitalism and arithmetic: The new math of the 15th century. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
118.
Tarver, S. (1996). Direct instruction. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives (pp. 143—152). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
119.
Treffers, A., De Moor, E., & Feijs, E. (1989). Towards a national curriculum for mathematics education in the elementary school: Part 1. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Zwijsen.
120.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Pursuing excellence: Comparisons of international eighth-grade mathematics achievement from a U.S. perspective, 1995 and 1999 (NCES 2001-028). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
121.
Usiskin, Z. (1998). Paper-and-pencil algorithms in a calculator-and-computer age. In L. Morrow & M. Kenney (Eds.), The teaching and learning of algorithms in school mathematics (pp. 7—21). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics .
122.
Vadeboncoeur, J. (1997). Child development and the purpose of education: A historical context of constructivism in teacher education. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understandings (pp. 15—37). London: Falmer Press.
123.
Van Lehn, K. (1990). Mind bugs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
124.
Von Glaserfeld, E. (1991). Radical constructivism in mathematics education . Boston: Kluwer Academic.
125.
Von Glaserfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 3—16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
126.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1989). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
127.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
128.
Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. New York : Harper & Row.
129.
Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
130.
Wilson, C., & Sindelar, P. (1991). Direct instruction in math word problems: Students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 57, 512—519.
131.
Wong, B. (1998). Analyses of intrinsic and extrinsic problems in the use of the scaffolding metaphor in learning disabilities intervention research: An introduction. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 31, 340—343.
132.
Wong, B., Butler, D., Ficzere, S., & Kuperis, S. (1996). Teaching low achievers and students with learning disabilities to plan, write, and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 197—212.
133.
Woodward, J. (2001). Constructivism and the role of skills in mathematics instruction for academically at-risk secondary students. Special Services in the Schools, 17(1/2), 15—32.
134.
Woodward, J., Baxter, J., & Robinson, R. (1999). Rules and reasons: Decimal instruction for academically low achieving students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(1), 15—24.
135.
Woodward, J., & Eckholds, H. (1999). A descriptive study of academically low achieving, first grade students in a reform mathematics curriculum (Tech. Rep. No. 99-2) . Tacoma, WA: University of Puget Sound.
136.
Woodward, J., & Howard, L. (1994). The misconceptions of youth: Errors and their mathematical meaning. Exceptional Children, 61, 126—136.
137.
Woodward, J., Howard, L., & Battle, R. (1997). Learning subtraction in the third and fourth grade: What develops over time (Tech. Rep. No. 97-2). Tacoma, WA: University of Puget Sound.
138.
Woodward, J., Monroe, K., & Baxter, J. (2001). Enhancing student achievement on performance assessments in mathematics. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(1), 33—46.
