This mixed-methods study assessed the effects of enhanced anchored instruction (EAI) on the math achievement of 17 adolescents who attended an alternative high school for at-risk students with challenging behaviors. EAI is a method specially designed for developing the math skills of low-achieving adolescents that uses multimedia-based and hands-on math problems to support learning in generative learning environments. Results indicated that students scored higher on both curriculum-aligned problem-solving tests (ES = 0.75 and 0.78), but they showed no improvement on a fraction computation test or on standardized measures. Descriptive data from classroom observations and poststudy interviews suggest instructional and learning factors that may account for the findings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ. A. (2001). A comparison of the academic progress of students with EBD and students with LD.Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 9, 106.
2.
BlackorbyJ., ChorostM., GarzaN., & GuzmanA. (2004). The academic performance of secondary students with disabilities. In Wagner, M. Marder, C., Blackorby, J., Cameto, R., Newman, L., Levine, P., & Davies-Mercier, E. (with Chorost, M., Garza, N., Guzman, A., & Sumi, C.). (2003). The achievements of youth with disabilities during secondary school. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2),(pp. 4-1–4-15). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Available: www.nlts2.org/pdfs/achievements_ch4.pdf.
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., & 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.
5.
BottgeB. A., HeinrichsM., ChanS., & SerlinR. (2001). Anchoring adolescents' understanding of math concepts in rich problem solving environments.Remedial and Special Education, 22, 299–314.
6.
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.
7.
BottgeB. A., HeinrichsM., MehtaZ.D., RuedaE., HungY., & DannekerJ. (2004). Teaching mathematical problem solving to middle school students in math, technology education, and special education classrooms.Research in Middle Level Education Online, 27(1). Available: http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/RMLEOnline/tabid/101/Default.aspx.
8.
BransfordJ. D., BrownA. L., CockingR. R., DonovanM. S., & PellegrinoJ. W. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9.
BrownJ. S., CollinsA., & DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 17(1), 32–41.
10.
BrunerJ. S. (1960). The process of education.New York: Random House.
11.
CeciS. J., & RoazziA. (1994). The effects of context on cognition: Postcards from Brazil. In SternbergR. J., & WagnerR. K. (Eds.), Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence (pp. 74–101). New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition.Educational Researcher, 19(3), 2–10.
13.
CohenE., & LotanR. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom.American Educational Research Journal, 32, 99–120.
14.
CookT. D., & CampbellD. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings.Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
15.
DeweyJ. (1938). Experience and education.New York: MacMillan.
16.
GamoranA., PorterA., SmithsonJ., & WhiteP. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 325–338.
17.
GoldmanS. R., HasselbringT. S. & the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). Achieving meaningful mathematics literacy for students with learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 198–208.
18.
GreenbaumP. E., & DedrickR. F. (1996). National Adolescent and Child Treatment Study (NACTS): Outcomes for children with serious emotional and behavioral disturbance.Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 130–147.
19.
GreenoJ. G. & the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research.American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.
20.
GunterP. L., & DennyR. K. (1998). Trends and issues in research regarding academic instruction of students with emotional and behavioral disorders.Behavioral Disorders, 24, 44–50.
21.
HansonW. E., Plano ClarkV. L., PetskaK. S., CreswellJ. W., & CreswellJ. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 224–235.
22.
JohnsonR. B., & OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come.Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
23.
KauffmanJ. M. (2001). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice-Hall.
24.
Learning Technology Center at Vanderbilt University. (1997). The new adventures of Jasper Woodbury.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
LesterJ.F. K., & KrollD. L. (1990). Assessing student growth in mathematical problem solving. In KulmG. (Ed.), Assessing higher order thinking in mathematics (pp. 53–70). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
26.
LewisT. J., HudsonS., RichterM., & JohnsonN. (2004). Scientifically supported practices in emotional and behavioral disorders: A proposed approach and brief review of current practices.Behavioral Disorders, 29, 247–259.
27.
MasingilaJ. O. (1993). Learning from mathematics practice in out-of-school situations.For the Learning of Mathematics, 13(2), 18–22.
28.
MattisonR. E., SpitznagelE. L., & FelixB. C. (1998). Enrollment predictors of the special education outcome for students with SED.Behavioral Disorders, 23, 143–256.
29.
McEvoyA., & WelkerR. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic behavior, and school climate.Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 130–140.
30.
MertensD. M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-emancipatory perspective. In TashakkoriA., & TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 135–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
MooneyP., EpsteinM. H., ReidR., & NelsonJ. R. (2003). Status and trends in academic intervention research for students with emotional disabilities.Remedial and Special Education, 24, 273–287.
32.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
33.
NelsonJ. R., BennerG. J., LaneK., & SmithB. W. (2004). Academic achievement of K–12 students with emotional and behavioral disorders.Exceptional Children, 71, 59–73.
34.
NossR., HoylesC., & PozziS. (2002). Abstraction in expertise: A study of nurses' conceptions of concentration.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 204–229.
35.
PierceC. D., ReidR., & EpsteinM. H. (2004). Teacher-mediated interventions for children with EBD and their academic outcomes.Remedial and Special Education, 25, 175–188.
36.
RosenthalR., & JacobsonL. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
37.
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.
38.
ScruggsT. E., MastropieriM. A., CookS., & EscobarC. (1986). Early intervention for children with conduct disorders: A quantitative synthesis of single-subject research.Behavioral Disorders, 11, 260–271.
39.
ShadishW. R., CookT. D., & CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
40.
Sulzer-AzaroffB., & MayerG. R. (1977). Applying behavior analysis procedures with children and youth.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
41.
UchidaD., CetronM., & MckenzieF. (1996). Preparing students for the 21st century.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
42.
University of Iowa. (2001). The Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS, Form A).Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
43.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for American 2000.Washington, DC: Author.
44.
VarenneH., & McDermottR. (1998). Successful failure: The school America builds.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
45.
WagnerM., & CametoR. (2004). The characteristics, experiences, and outcomes of youth with emotional disturbances. NLTS Data Brief, Reports from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), 3(2), Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Available: http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1687.
46.
WeinsteinR. S., & MiddlestadtS. E. (1979). Student perceptions of teachers interactions with high and low achievers.Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 421–431.
47.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2001). Emotional and behavior disorder evaluation guide.Madison, WI: Author.
