The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of video-based, anchored instruction and applied problems on the ability of 11 low-achieving (LA) and 26 average-achieving (AA) students to solve computation and word problems. A repeated-measures design with staggered baselines was used to compare the performance of two groups of LA students and one group of AA students across three instructional conditions: (a) baseline instruction, (b) anchored instruction, and (c) instruction with applied problems. The performance of all three groups was higher during anchored instruction than during the baseline condition, but no differences were found between instruction with applied problems and the baseline condition. Qualitative analyses revealed that some LA students made fewer errors on computation and word problems during the anchored condition, whereas other students continued to make the same procedural mistakes. The findings suggest that some LA students can improve their procedural math skills as they work on solving engaging problems but other students need more explicit instruction to improve their computation skills and basic math understanding.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnyonJ. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 3–41.
2.
BakerF. B. (1992). Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques. New York: Marcel Dekker.
3.
BehrM. J.LeshR.PostT. R.SilverE. A. (1983). Rational number concepts. In LeshR.LandauM. (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematical concepts and processes (pp. 91–126). New York: Academic Press.
4.
BehrJ. J.WachsmuthI.PostT. R. (1985). Construct a sum: A measure of children's understanding of fraction size. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 120–131.
5.
BorgW. R.GallM. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction. (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
6.
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.
7.
BottgeB. A. (2001). Reconceptualizing math problem solving for low-achieving students. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 102–112.
8.
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.
9.
BottgeB. A.HeinrichsM.ChanS.SerlinR. (2001). Anchoring adolescents' understanding of math concepts in rich problem solving environments. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 299–314.
10.
BottgeB. A.HeinrichsM.MehtaZ.HungY. (2002). Weighing the benefits of anchored math instruction for students with disabilities in general education classes. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 186–200.
11.
BransfordJ.HasselbringT.BarronB.KulewiczS.LittlefieldJ.GoinL. (1988). Uses of macro-contexts to facilitate mathematical thinking. In CharlesR. I.SilverE. A. (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 125–180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
12.
Bransford, J.D., Zech, L., Schwartz, D., Barron, B., Vye, N., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1996). Fostering mathematical thinking in middle school students. In SternbergR.J.Ben-ZeevT. (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 203–250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
BrownJ. S.CollinsA.DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 17(1), 32–41.
14.
CarpenterT. P.MoserJ. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts in grades one through three. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 179–202.
15.
CawleyJ. F.KahnH.TedescoA. (1989). Vocational education and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 284–290.
16.
CawleyJ.ParmarR.FoleyT. E.SalmonS.RoyS. (2001). Arithmetic performance of students: Implications for standards and programming. Exceptional Children, 67, 311–328.
17.
CawleyJ. F.ParmarR. S.YanW.MillerJ. H. (1998). Arithmetic computation performance of students with learning disabilities: Implications for curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 68–74.
18.
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.
19.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper Project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
CohenA. S.BottgeB. A.WellsC. S. (2001). Using item response theory to assess effects of mathematics instruction in special populations. Exceptional Children, 68, 23–44.
21.
DeciE. L.ChandlerC. L. (1986). The importance of motivation for the future of the LD field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 587–594.
22.
EllisE. S. (1998). Watering up the curriculum for adolescents with mild disabilities: Part 2—The affective dimension. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 91–105.
23.
GerstenR. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with learning disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 162–170.
24.
GerstenR.BakerS.LloydJ. W. (2000). Designing high-quality research in special education: Group experimental design. Journal of Special Education, 34, 2–18.
25.
GerstenR.ChardD. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33, 18–28.
26.
GinsburgH. P. (1997). Mathematics learning disabilities: A view from developmental psychology. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 20–33.
27.
GinsburgH. P. (1998). Mathematics learning disabilities: A view from developmental psychology. In RiveraD. P. (Ed.), Mathematics education for students with learning disabilities (pp. 33–58). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
28.
GreshamF. M. (1988). Social competence and motivational characteristics of learning disabled students. In WangM. C.ReynoldsM. C.WalbergH. J. (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice: Vol. 2. Mildly handicapped conditions (pp. 283–302). New York: Pergamon.
29.
HabermanM. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 290–294.
HersenM.BarlowD. H. (1981). Single-case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. New York: Pergamon Press.
32.
HickeyD. T.MooreA. L.PellegrinoJ. W. (2001). The motivational and academic consequences of elementary mathematics environments: Do constructivist innovations and reforms make a difference? American EducationalResearch Journal, 38, 611–652.
33.
HiebertJ.CarpenterT. P.FennemaE.FusonK.HumanP.MurrayH. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.
34.
Jastak & Associates. (1993). Wide range achievement test. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range.
35.
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.
36.
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
37.
KavaleK. A.ReeseJ. H. (1992). The character of learning disabilities: An Iowa profile. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 74–94.
38.
KerslakeD. (1986). Fractions: Children's strategies and errors: A report of the Strategies and Errors in Secondary Mathematics Project. Windsor, Berkshire, England: NFER-Nelson.
39.
KnappM. S.TurnbullB. J. (1990). Better schooling for the children of poverty: Alternatives to conventional wisdom. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation.
40.
LaveJ.SmithS.ButlerM. (1988). Problem solving as an everyday practice. In CharlesR. I.SilverE. A. (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 61–81). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
41.
Learning Technology Center at Vanderbilt University. (1996). The new adventures of Jasper Woodbury [Videodisc]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
LordF. N. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43.
MacMillanD. L.KeoghB. K.JonesR. L. (1986). Special educational research on mildly handicapped learners. In WittrockW. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 686–724). New York: Macmillan.
44.
MayerR. E. (1993). Understanding individual differences in mathematical problem solving: Towards a research agenda. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 16, 2–5.
45.
McKinneyJ. D.OsborneS. S.SchulteA. C. (1993). Academic consequences of learning disability: Longitudinal prediction of outcomes at 11 years of age. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 19–27.
46.
McKnightC. C. (1990). Critical evaluation of quantitative arguments. In KulmG. K. (Ed.), Assessing higher order thinking in mathematics (pp. 169–185). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
47.
MontagueM.ApplegateB. (1993). Middle school students' mathematical problem solving: An analysis of think-aloud protocols. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 19–32.
48.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
49.
NoddingsN. (1985). Small groups as a setting for research on mathematical problem solving. In SilverE. A. (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 345–359). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
50.
NormanD. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In GentnerD.StevensA. L. (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7–14). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
51.
NunesT.SchliemannA. D.CarraherD. W. (1993). Street mathematics and school mathematics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
52.
ParmarR. S.CawleyJ. F.FrazitaR. R. (1996). Word problem-solving by students with and without mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62, 415–429.
53.
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.
54.
ShepardR. N.CooperL. A. (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
55.
SmithJ. P. (1995). Competent reasoning with rational numbers. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 3–50.
56.
ThorndikeE. L. (1922). Psychology of arithmetic. New York: Macmillan. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2000 (NCES 2001–517). Washington, DC: Author.
57.
WhiteheadA. M. (1929). The aims of education. New York: Macmillan.
58.
WoodwardJ.BaxterJ. (1997). The effects of an innovative approach to mathematics on academically low-achieving students in inclusive settings. Exceptional Children, 63, 373–388.
59.
WoodwardJ.BaxterJ.RobinsonR. (1999). Rules and reasons: Decimal instruction for academically low achieving students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 15–24.
60.
WoodwardJ.HowardL. (1994). The misconceptions of youth: Errors and their mathematical meaning. Exceptional Children, 61, 126–136.
61.
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.
62.
ZentallS. S.FerkisM. A. (1993). Mathematical problem solving for youth with ADHD, with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 6–18.
