Technology is a natural part of education for all students across a variety of subjects, including mathematics, as educators work to prepare students for tomorrow's work force and align their curriculum and teaching with national standards such those developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000). This article reviews the literature on mathematics, assistive technology (AT), and educating students with high-incidence disabilities in grades K-12 from 1996 through 2007. The results of the literature review revealed three main areas of AT in mathematics for students with disabilities: anchored instruction, computer-assisted instruction, and calculators. The review focuses on what has been done and suggests that we do know some things in terms of effective AT and mathematics education (i.e., anchored instruction). It then discusses where the field needs to go to improve its knowledge base (i.e., researching AT currently used in the teaching and learning of mathematics, and researching recent innovations in mathematics technology).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonC.AndersonK. (1999). Integrating spreadsheets into mathematics for students with disabilities. Special Education Technology Practice, 1(4), 37–39.
2.
AndersonK. M.AndersonC. L. (2001). Using software to help visualize mathematical processes. Special Education Technology Practice, 3(2), 13–18.
3.
BeersG. W. (2005). The effect of teaching method on objective test scores: Problem-based learning versus lecture. Journal of Nursing Education, 44, 305–309.
4.
BenderW. N. (2001). Learning disabilities: Characteristics, identification, and teaching strategies. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
5.
BerksonL. (1993). Problem based learning: Have the expectations been met. Academic Medicine, 68, 79–83.
6.
*BethellS. C.MillerN. B. (1998). From an E to an A in first-year algebra with the help of a graphing calculator. Mathematics Teacher, 91, 118–119.
7.
BlackhurstA. E. (2005). Historical perspective about technology applications for people with disabilities. In EdyburnD.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), Handbook of special education research and practice (pp. 3–29). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
8.
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.
9.
*BottgeB. 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.
10.
BottgeB.HasselbringT. S. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math class. Exceptional Children, 59, 556–566.
11.
*BottgeB. A.HeinrichsM.ChanS-Y.MehtaZ. D.WatsonE. (2003). Effects of video-based and applied problems on the procedural math skills of average- and low-achieving adolescents. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(2), 5–22.
12.
*BottgeB. A.HeinrichsM.ChanS-Y.SerlinR. C. (2001). Anchoring adolescents' understanding of math concepts in rich problem-solving environments. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 299–314.
13.
*BottgeB. A.HeinrichsM.MehtaZ. D.HungY-H. (2002). Weighing the benefits of anchored math instruction for students with disabilities in general education classes. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 186–200.
14.
*BottgeB. A.RuedaE.SerlinR. C.HungY.KwonJ. M. (2007). Shrinking achievement differences with anchored math problems: Challenges and possibilities. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 31–49.
15.
*BottgeB. A.RuedaE.SivingtonM. (2006). Situating math instruction in rich problem-solving contexts: Effects on adolescents with challenging behaviors. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 394–407.
16.
*BouckE. C.(in press). Calculating the value of graphing calculators for seventh grade students with and without disabilities. Remedial and Special Education.
17.
*BouckE. C.BouckM. K. (2008). Does it add up? Calculator use by middle school students with and without disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(2), 17–32.
18.
CawleyJ. F.Baker-KroczynskiS.UrbanA. (1992). Seeking excellence in mathematics education for students with mild disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(2), 40–43.
19.
CawleyJ. F.MillerJ. H. (1989). Cross-sectional comparisons of the mathematical performance of children with learning disabilities: Are we on the right track toward comprehensive programming?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 250–259.
20.
CawleyJ.ParmarR.FoleyT. E.SalmonS.RoyS. (2001). Arithmetic performance of students: Implications for standards and programming. Exceptional Children, 67, 311–328.
21.
CawleyJ. F.ParmarR. S.YanW. F.MillerJ. H. (1998). Arithmetic computation performance of students with learning disabilities: Implications for curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 68–74.
22.
*ChristleC. A.HessJ. M.HasselbringT. S. (2001). Technology research in practice. Taking a virtual trip to the mall to learn math. Special Education Technology Practice, 3(2), 23–31.
23.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationships to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(3), 2–10.
24.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University. (1991). Technology and design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology, 31(5), 34–40.
25.
CottonK. (1991). Computer-assisted instruction. School Improvement Research Series: Close-Up #10. Retrieved February 13, 2007, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/5/cu10.html.
26.
DodsD. F. (1997). An action research study on the effectiveness of problem based learning in promoting the acquisition and retention of knowledge. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 423–437.
27.
EdyburnD. L. (2003). Measuring assistive technology outcomes in mathematics. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(4), 76–79.
28.
EdyburnD. L. (2004). 2003 in Review: A synthesis of the special education technology literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(4), 57–80.
29.
EdyburnD. L.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.) (2005). Handbook of special education research and practice. Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
30.
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.
31.
FitzgeraldG.KouryK. A. (1996). Empirical advances in technology-assisted instruction for students with mild and moderate disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 526–553.
32.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.EatonS. B.HamletC. L.KarnsK. M. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 3–24.
33.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamletC. L.PowellS. R.CapizziA. M.SeethalerP. M. (2006). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on number combination skill in at-risk first graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 467–467.
34.
GagnonJ. C.BottgeB. A. (2006). Mathematics instruction in secondary interim, short- and long-term alternative school placements. Preventing School Failure, 51(1), 39–47.
35.
GlazerE. (2004). K-12 mathematics on the web: Opportunities and challenges. Computers in the School, 21(3), 37–43.
36.
HasselbringT. S.GlaserC. H. W. (2000). Use of computer technology to help students with special needs. The Future of Children, 10(2), 102–122.
37.
HasselbringT. S.GoinL. I.BransfordJ. D. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20(6), 1–7.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446 (2004).
40.
*IrishC. (2002). Using peg- and keyword mnemonics and computer-assisted instruction to enhance basic multiplication performance in elementary students with learning and cognitive disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(4), 29–40.
41.
JohnstonL.BeardL. A.CarpenterL. B. (2007). Assistive technology: Access for all students. Columbus, OH: Pearson.
42.
KauffmanJ. M.McGeeK.BrighamM. (2004). Enabling or disabling? Observations on changes in special education. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 613–620.
43.
LahmE. A. (2005). Improving practice using assistive technology knowledge and skills. In EdyburnD.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), Handbook of special education research and practice (pp. 721–746). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
44.
LangoneJ. (2005). Foreword. In EdyburnD.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), Handbook of special education research and practice (pp. xi–xii). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
45.
LewisR. B. (1993). Special education technology: Classroom applications. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
46.
LewisR. B. (1998). Assistive technology and learning disabilities: Today's realities and tomorrow's promises. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 16–26.
47.
LiQ. (2005). Infusing technology into a mathematics methods course: Any impact?Educational Research, 47, 217–233.
MacciniP.GagnonJ. C. (2000). Best practices for teaching mathematics to secondary students with special needs. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(5), 1–22.
50.
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.
51.
MacciniP.GagnonJ. C. (2006). Mathematics instructional practice and assessment accommodations by secondary special and general educators. Exceptional Children, 72, 217–234.
52.
MapesL. V. (1994). A great equalizer: Computers give disabled kids opportunities once unimaginable. Spokesman-Review. Retrieved January 16, 2004, from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Press/computer.html.
53.
*MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.ShiahR. L. (1997). Can computers teach problem-solving strategies to students with mild mental retardation? A case study. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 157–165.
54.
McDonaldK. K.HannafinR. D. (2003). Using web-based computer games to meet the demands of today's high stakes testing: A mixed method inquiry. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 459–472.
55.
MichaelsC. A.McDermottJ. (2003). Assistive technology integration in special education teacher preparation: Program coordinators' perceptions of current attainment and importance. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(3), 29–41.
56.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
57.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
58.
No Child Left Behind act of 2001, P.L. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425.
59.
OkoloC. M. (1992). The effect of computer-assisted instruction format and initial attitude on the arithmetic facts proficiency and continuing motivation of students with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 3, 195–211.
60.
OkoloC.BahrC.RiethH. (1993). A retrospective view of computer-based instruction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(1), 1–27.
61.
QuinnR. J. (1998). Technology: Preservice teachers' beliefs and the influence of a mathematics methods course. The Clearing House, 71, 375–377.
62.
RideoutV.RobertsD. F.FoehrU. G. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8–18 year olds. Washington, DC: Kaiser Family Foundation.
63.
RileyG. W.BeardL. A. (2002). On-screen math manipulatives: Virtual access for students unable to handle traditional manipulatives. Special Education Technology Practice, 4(2), 40–42.
64.
ShaftelJ.Belton-KocherE.GlasnappD. R.PoggioJ. P. (2003). The differential impact of accommodations in statewide assessment: Research summary. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 5, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/TopicAreas/Accommodations/Kansas.htm.
65.
StrangerJ. D.GridinaN. (1999). Media in the home 1999: The fourth annual survey of parents and children. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg Public Policy Center.
66.
SubrahmanyamK.KrautR. E.GreenfieldP. M.GrossE. F. (2000). The impact of home computer use on children's activities and development. The Future of Children, 10(2), 123–125.
67.
ThurlowM.AlbusD.SpicuzzaR.ThompsonS. (1998). Participation and performance of students with disabilities: Minnesota's 1996 basic standards test in reading and math. (Minnesota Report 16). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
68.
ThurlowM. L.LazarusS. S.ThompsonS. J.MorseA. B. (2005). State policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 232–240.
69.
TindalG.Ketterlin-GellerL. R. (2004, January). Research on mathematics test accommodations relevant to MAEP 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.
70.
WatkinsM. W. (1989). Computerized drill-and-practice and academic attitudes of learning disabled students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 9(3), 167–172.
71.
*WilsonR.MajsterekD.SimmonsD. (1996). The effects of computer-assisted versus teacher-directed instruction on the multiplication performance of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 382–390.
72.
WissickC. (2000). Drill and practice web style. Special Education Technology Practice, 2(3), 37–39.
73.
WoodwardJ. (1999). Redoing the numbers: Secondary math for a postsecondary work world. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(4), 74–79.
74.
WoodwardJ. (2004). Mathematics education in the United States: Past to present. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 16–31.
75.
WoodwardJ.BaxterJ.RobinsonR. (1999). Rules and reasons: Decimal instruction for academically low achieving students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 5–24.
76.
WoodwardJ.CarnineD. (1993). Use of technology for mathematics assessment and instruction: Reflection on a decade of innovations. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(1), 38–48.
77.
WoodwardJ.MontagueM. (2002). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with LD. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 89–101.
78.
*XinJ. F. (1999). Computer-assisted cooperative learning in integrated classrooms for students with and without disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1999, 61–78.
79.
ZabalaJ. S.CarlD. F. (2005). Quality indicators for assistive technology services in schools. In EdyburnD.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), Handbook of special education research and practice (pp. 179–207). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
