BottgeB. A. (1999). Effects of contextualized math instruction on problem solving of average and below-average achieving students. Journal of Special Education, 33, 81–92.
2.
BottgeB. A. (2001). Reconceptualizing math problem solving for low-achieving students. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 102–112.
3.
BottgeB. A.HasselbringT. S. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children, 59, 556–566.
4.
BottgeB. A.HeinrichsM.ChanS.SerlinR. (in press). Anchoring adolescents' understanding of math concepts in rich problem solving environments. Remedial and Special Education.
5.
BrunerJ. S. (1960). The process of education. New York: Random House.*
6.
CarnineD. (1997). Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 130–141.
7.
CawleyJ.ParmarR.FoleyT. E.SalmonS.RoyS. (2001). Arithmetic performance of students: Implications for standards and programming. Exceptional Children, 67, 311–328.
8.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The new adventures of Jasper Woodbury. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
CohenA. S.BottgeB. A.WellsC. S. (in press). Using Item Response Theory to assess effects of mathematics instruction in special populations. Exceptional Children.
10.
CohenJ. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.*
11.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act. (1994). 20 U.S.C. 5801.
12.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997. (1997). 20 U.S.C., Secs. 1400-1485.8.
13.
JitendraA. K.HoffK.BeckM. 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.
14.
MontagueM. (1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 164–177.
15.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
16.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.*
17.
NewmannF. M.SecadaW. G.WehlageG. G. (1995). A guide to authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards, and scoring. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.*
18.
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. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 328 871).
19.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 332 054).
20.
WilkinsonG. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test 3. Wilmington, DE: Jastak.
21.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K. (1999). The effects of instruction in solving mathematical word problems for students with learning problems: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 207–225.