Finding effective ways to increase the academic skills of incarcerated adults is often cited as a key factor in reducing recidivism. The purpose of the research was to study a method of instruction using video-based problems to help incarcerated adults with emotional and learning disabilities to improve their procedural and problem solving skills. An interpretive framework provided a means of comparing anticipated learning trajectories with actual learning trajectories. Prior to instruction, learning goals were predicted for each individual based on their instructional histories and living experiences prior to and during incarceration. A theoretical model for teaching mathematics guided instruction toward each individual's anticipated goals, and a combination of tests, interviews, and field notes documented their actual learning trajectories. Results of the study showed that the individuals learned to compute fractions and solve a multi-step, video-based problem. Follow-up measures showed their skills were maintained six weeks following instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychiatric Association (1996) Diagnostic statistical manual – IV. American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC.
2.
BaroodyA. J., & HumeJ. (1991). Meaningful mathematics instruction: The case of fractions. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 54–68.
3.
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.
4.
BottgeB. A. (2001). Reconceptualizing math problem solving for low-achieving students. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 102–112.
5.
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.
6.
BottgeB. A.HeinrichsM.ChanS. Y., & WatsonE. (2000). Enhancing procedural and conceptual knowledge with contextualized math problems. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
7.
BowersJ.CobbP., & McClainK. (1999). The evolution of mathematical practices: A case study. Cognition and instruction, 17, 25–64.
8.
BransfordJ. D., & VyeN. J. (1989). A Perspective on cognitive research and its implications for instruction. In ResnickL. B. & KlopferL. E. (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 173–205). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
9.
BrunerJ. S. (1960). The process of education. New York: Random House.
10.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000). Criminal offenders statistics. US Department of Justice. Available: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/.
11.
CawleyJ. F. (1985). Cognition and the learning disabled. In CawleyJ. F. (Ed.), Cognitive strategies and mathematics for the learning disabled (pp. 1–32). Rockford, MD: Aspen.
12.
CawleyJ. F.KahnH., & TedescoA. (1989). Vocational education and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 284–290.
13.
CawleyJ. F.ParmarR. S.YanW., & MillerJ. H. (1998). Arithmetic computation performance of students with learning disabilities: Implications for curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research 6) Practice, 13, 68–74.
14.
CobbP., & BowersJ. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.
15.
CobbP.YackelE., & WoodT. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 2–33.
16.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper Project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
DeweyJ. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
18.
DuguidS. (1992). “Becoming interested in other things” the impact of education in prison. Journal of Correctional Education, 43, 38–44.
19.
FarnworthM., & LeiberM. J. (1989). Strain theory revisited: Economic goals, educational means, and delinquency. American Sociological Review, 55, 148–153.
20.
FinkC. M. (1990). Special education inservice for correctional educators. Journal of Correctional Education, 40, 186–190.
21.
GehringT. (1989). A change in our way of thinking. Journal of Correctional Education, 40, 166–173.
22.
GerstenR. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with learning disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 162–170.
23.
GerstenR.BakerS., & LloydJ. W. (2000). Designing high-quality research in special education: Group experimental design. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 2–18.
24.
GerstenR., & ChardD. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 18–28.
25.
GinsburgH. P. (1997). Mathematics learning disabilities: A view from developmental psychology. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 20–33.
26.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
27.
GreenoJ. G., & the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.
28.
HadamardJ. (1945). Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
HatanoG., & InagakiK. (1993). Desituating cognition through the construction of conceptual knowledge. In LightP. & ButterworthG. (Eds.), Context and cognition: Ways of learning and knowing (pp. 115–133). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30.
HubermanA. M., & MilesM. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428–444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
JenkinsH. D. (1994). Mandatory education. Journal of Correctional Education, 45, 26–29.
32.
MayerR. E. (1993). Understanding individual differences in mathematical problem solving:Towards a research agenda. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 16, 2–5.
33.
MorganD. J. (1979). Prevalence and types of handicapping conditions found in juvenile correctional institutions: A national survey. The Journal of Special Education. 13, 283–295.
34.
MorrisS. M., & SteadmanH. J. (1997). Mental health services in United States jails. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 17–23.
35.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
36.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
37.
NormanD. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In GentnerD. & StevensA. L. (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7–14). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38.
PhelpsA., & Hanley-MaxwellC. (1997). School to work transitions for youth with disabilities: A review of outcomes and practices. Review of Educational Research, 67, 197–226.
39.
PolyaG. (1962). Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning, and teaching problem solving. (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley.
40.
PugachM. C. (2001). The stories we choose to tell: Fulfilling the promise of qualitative research in special education. Exceptional Children, 67, 439–453
41.
RutherfordR. B.NelsonC. M., & WolfordB. I. (1985). Special Education in the most restrictive environment: Correctional/special education. The Journal of Special Education, 19, 59–71.
42.
RyanT. A. (1995). Correctional education: Past is prologue to the future. Journal of Correctional Education, 46, 60–65.
43.
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.
44.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
Sulzer-AzaroffB., & MayerG. R. (1977). Applying behavior analysis procedures with children and youth. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
46.
WilliamsonG. L. (1992). Education and incarceration: An examination of the relationship between educational achievement and criminal behavior. Journal of Correctional Education, 43, 14–22.
47.
WertheimerM. (1959). Productive thinking. New York: Harper & Brothers.
48.
WintersC. A. (1997). Learning disabilities, crime, delinquency, and special education placement. Adolescence, 32, 451–462.
