This study explored the performance of sixth grade students with and without disabilities on a mathematics assessment aligned to state standards when provided a calculator as an accommodation. The study utilized a pre/posttest design. No student was given access to a calculator on the pretest, and approximately half of the students were randomly assigned to have access to a four-function calculator on the posttest. The results suggest that both students with disabilities and students without disabilities benefited from access to a calculator. The findings raise implications for calculators as a valid accommodation on assessments and suggest directions for future research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoltS. E. (2004, April). Using DIF analyses to examine several commonly held beliefs about testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Council of Measurement, San Diego, CA.
2.
CawleyJ.ParmarR.FleyT. E.SalmonS.RoyS. (2001). Arithmetic performance of students: Implications for standards and programming. Exceptional Children, 67, 311–328.
3.
D'AmbrosioB. Z.HarknessS. S.BooneW. J. (2004). Planning district-wide professional development: Insights gained from teachers and students regarding mathematics training in a large urban school district. School Science and Mathematics, 104, 5–15.
4.
ElbaumB. (2007). Effects of an oral testing accommodation on the mathematics performance of secondary students with and without learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 218–229.
5.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.EatonS. B.HamlettC. L.KarnsK. M. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 3–24.
6.
GinsburgH. P. (1997). Mathematics learning disabilities: A view from developmental psychology. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 20–33.
7.
HasselbringT. S.LottA. C.ZydneyJ. M. (2006). Technology-supported math instruction for students with disabilities: Two decades of research and development. LD Online, Retrieved September 25, 2006, from http://www.ldonline.org/article/6291.
8.
LazarusS. S.ThurlowM. L.LailK. E.EisenbraunK. D.KatoK. (2006). 2005 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 64). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 5, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis64.
9.
LovelessT. (2004, April). Computation skills, calculators, and achievement gaps: An analysis of NAEP items. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://www.brookings.org/views/papers/20040415loveless.htm.
10.
MacciniP.GagnonJ. C. (2000). Best practices for teaching mathematics to secondary students with special needs. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(5), 1–22.
11.
MacciniP.GagnonJ. C. (2005). Mathematics and technology-based interventions. In EdyburnD.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), Handbook of special education research and practice (pp. 599–622). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
12.
MercerJ. (1992). What is left to teach if students can use calculators?The Mathematics Teacher, 85, 415–417.
13.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and NCTM standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
14.
ParmarR. S.CawleyJ. F.MillerJ. H. (1994). Differences in mathematics performance between students with disabilities and students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 60, 549–563.
RubensteinR. N. (2001). Mental mathematics beyond the middle school: Why? What? How?The Mathematics Teacher, 94, 442–444.
17.
SchmidtM. E. (1999). Middle grades teachers' beliefs about calculator use: Pre-project and two years later. Focus on Learning Mathematics, 21, 18–34.
18.
ShaftelJ.Belton-KocherE.GlasnappD. R.PoggioJ. P. (2003). The differential impact of accommodations in statewide assessment: Research summary. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 5, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/TopicAreas/Accommodations/Kansas.htm.
19.
ThurlowM. L.LazarusS. S.ThompsonS. J.MorseA. B. (2005). State policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 38, 232–240.
20.
TindalG.Ketterlin-GellerL. R. (2004, January). Research on mathematics test accommodations relevant to NAEP testing. Paper presented at the NAGB Conference on Increasing the Participation of SD and LEP Students in NAEP. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://www.nagb.org/pubs/conferences/tindal.pdf.
21.
WalenS. B.WilliamsS. R.GarnerB. E. (2003). Pre-service teachers learning mathematics using calculators: A failure to connect current and future practices. Teaching and Teacher Educator, 19, 445–462.
22.
WoodwardJ.BaxterJ.RobinsonR. (1999). Rules and reasons: Decimal instruction for academically low achieving students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 5–24.
23.
WoodwardJ.MontagueM. (2002). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with LD. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 89–101.
