Multiple measures administered in repeated waves within a nonequivalent dependent variables quasi-experimental design were used to test the effects of a reform-oriented instructional method called Enhanced Anchored Instruction (EAI) on the math achievement of 128 middle school students, including students with learning disabilities (LD). EAI problems are presented in multimedia and hands-on formats, a potential benefit for students with low skills in both reading and math. Overall, students of all ability levels benefited from EAI with effect sizes (η2) ranging from .53 to .59. Results revealed that although students with LD scored lower on pretests, their learning trajectories matched those of students without LD. A maintenance test administered several weeks after instruction showed that students with LD retained what they had learned. Implications for instruction and suggestions for future research are provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baker, J.M., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities?Exceptional Children , 56, 515—526.
2.
Bottge, B.A. (1999). Effects of contextualized math instruction on problem solving of average and below-average achieving students. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 81—92.
3.
Bottge, B.A. (2001). Reconceptualizing math problem solving for low-achieving students. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 102—112.
4.
Bottge, B.A., Heinrichs, M., Chan, S., & Serlin, R. (2001). Anchoring adolescents' understanding of math concepts in rich problem solving environments. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 299—314.
5.
Bottge, B.A., Heinrichs, M., Mehta, Z., & Hung, Y. (2002). Weighing the benefits of anchored math instruction for students with disabilities in general education classes. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 186—200.
6.
Bottge, B.A., Heinrichs, M., Mehta, Z.D., Rueda, E., Hung, Y., & Danneker, J. (2004). Teaching mathematical problem solving to middle school students in math, technology education, and special education classrooms . Research in Middle Level Education Online, 27(1), 1—17. (Available at http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/RMLEOnline/Articles/Vol27No1Article1/tabid/529/Default.aspx)
7.
Butler, F.M., Miller, S.P., Crehan, K., Babbitt, B., & Pierce, T. (2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 99—111.
8.
Carnine, D. (1998). Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. In D. P. Rivera (Ed.), Mathematics education for students with learning disabilities: Theory to practice (pp. 119—138). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
9.
Ceci, S.J., & Roazzi, A. (1994). The effects of context on cognition: Post-cards from Brazil. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence (pp. 74—101). New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction . Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293—332.
11.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(3), 2—10.
12.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University. (1997). The Jasper Project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
Conderman, G., & Katsiyannis, A. (2002). Instructional issues and practices in secondary special education. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 169—179.
14.
Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston : Houghton Mifflin.
15.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1997). TerraNova Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills. Monterey, CA: Author.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: Research, policy, practice for democratic education. Educational Researcher, 25(6), 5—17.
18.
Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., Lenz, B.K., Bulgren, J.A., Hock, M.F., Knight, J., et al. (2001). Insuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 96—108.
19.
Empson, S.B. (2003). Low-performing students and teaching fractions for understanding: An interactional analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 305—343.
20.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1995). What's special about special education?Phi Delta Kappan,76, 522—530.
21.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1998). Researchers and teachers working together to adapt instruction for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 126—137.
22.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Mathematical problem-solving profiles of students with mathematics disabilities with and without comorbid reading difficulties . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 563—573.
23.
Gersten, R. (2005). Behind the scenes of an intervention research study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 200—212.
24.
Graham, S. (2005). Further behind the scenes of intervention research . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 221—224.
25.
Hickey, D.T., Moore, A.L., & Pellegrino, J.W. (2001). The motivational and academic consequences of elementary mathematics environments: Do constructivist innovations and reforms make a difference?American Educational Research Journal, 38, 611—652.
26.
Hill, H.C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D.L. (2005). Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371—406.
27.
Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65—70.
28.
Hung, Y-H. (2005). The e fects of prior knowledge on mathematics learning of adolescents with or without learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Wisconsin— Madison.
29.
Hutchinson, N.L. (1993). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on algebraic problem solving of adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 34—63.
30.
International Technology Education Association. ( 2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
31.
Jitendra, A., DiPipi, C. M., & Perron-Jones, N. (2002). An exploratory study of schema-based word-problem-solving instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities: An emphasis on conceptual and procedural understanding . The Journal of Special Education, 36, 23—38.
32.
Jitendra, A.K., Hoff, K., & Beck, M.M. (1999). Teaching middle school students with learning disabilities to solve word problems using a schema-based approach. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 50—64.
33.
Jones, E.D., Wilson, R., & Bhojwani, S. (1997). Mathematics instruction for secondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 30, 151—163.
34.
Learning Technology Center at Vanderbilt University. (1997). The new adventures of Jasper Woodbury. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
35.
Lesh, R., & Kelly, A. (2000). Multitiered teaching experiments. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 197—230). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36.
Lester, F.K., Jr., & Kroll, D.L. (1990). Assessing student growth in mathematical problem solving. In G. Kulm (Ed.), Assessing higher order thinking in mathematics (pp. 53—70). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
37.
Maccini, P., & Hughes, C.A. (2000). Effects of a problem-solving strategy on the introductory algebra performance of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 10—21.
38.
Mack, N.K. (1995). Confounding whole-number and fraction concepts when building on informal knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 422—441.
39.
Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychology, 38(1), 43—52.
40.
Montague, M. (1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 164—177.
41.
Montague, M. (1998). Cognitive strategy instruction in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. In D. P. Rivera (Ed.), Mathematics education for students with learning disabilities (pp. 177—199). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
42.
Montague, M., & Bos, C. (1986). The effect of cognitive strategy training on verbal math problem solving performance of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 26—33.
43.
Mousavi, S.Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology , 87, 319—334.
44.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
45.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. ( 2002)
46.
Palincsar, A.S. (2005). Working theory into and out of design experiments . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 218—220.
47.
Perie, M., Grigg, W., & Dion, G. (2005). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2005 (NCES 2006-453). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
48.
Rea, P.J., McLaughlin, V.L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68, 203—222.
49.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger, K.R. (2005). Designing knowledge scaffolds to support mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction , 23, 313—349.
50.
Saxe, G.B., Taylor, E.V., McIntosh, C., & Gearhart, M. (2005). Repesenting fractions with standard notation: A developmental analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36, 137—157.
51.
Seaman, M.A., Levin, J.R., & Serlin, R.C. (1991). New developments in pairwise multiple comparisons: Some powerful and practicable procedures. Psychological Bulletin,110, 577—586.
52.
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
53.
Shafer, M.C., & Romberg, T.A. (1999). Assessment in classrooms that promote understanding . In E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 159—184). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
54.
Star, J.R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36, 404—411.
55.
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G.R. (1977). Applying behavior analysis procedures with children and youth. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
56.
Swanson, H.L. (2001). Research on intervention for adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related to high-order processing . The Elementary School Journal, 101, 331—348.
57.
Swanson, H.L., & Deshler, D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 124—135.
58.
Swanson, H.L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68, 277—321.
59.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257—285.
60.
Tabbers, H.K., Martens, R.L., & van Merrienboer, J.J.G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. TheBritish Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71—81.
61.
University of Iowa. (2001). The Iowa tests of basic skills (ITBS, Form A). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
62.
U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 20 U.S.C. § 5801.
63.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: Author.
64.
Vaughn, S., Klingner, J., & Hughes, M. (2000). Sustainability of research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 66, 163—171.
65.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. ( 2006). Specific Learning Disabilities Eligibility Criteria Resources . Retrieved October 23, 2006, from http://dpi.wi.gov/sped/eligild.html
66.
Witzel, B.S., Mercer, C.D., & Miller, M.D. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 121—131.
67.
Woodward, J. (2004). Mathematics education in the United States: Past to present. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 16—31.
68.
Woodward, J., & Baxter, J. (1997). The effects of an innovative approach to mathematics on academically low-achieving students in inclusive settings. Exceptional Children, 63, 373—388.
69.
Woodward, J., & Montague, M. (2002). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with LD. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 89—101.
