Over the past century, learning theorists have advised researchers and practitioners on ways to improve student math performance. Available evidence suggests that these messages are mostly undelivered or unaccepted, or both, especially as they pertain to students who are unsuccessful in school. One of the reasons for the disconnection may be confusion about how learning theory can help identify suitable ways of delivering mathematics instruction to special populations. Based on a review of the literature in general education and special education, this article proposes a key model for teaching math to at-risk students. Implications of the model for research and instruction are explored.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adelman, H.S. (1994). Learning disabilities: On interpreting research translations. In N. C. Jordan & J. Goldsmith-Phillips (Eds.), Learning disabilities: New directions for assessment and intervention (pp. 1-19). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
2.
Alexander, P.A., Murphy, P.K., & Woods, B.S. (1996). Of squalls and fathoms: Navigating the seas of educational innovation. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 31-36, 39.
3.
Algozzine, B., O'Shea, D., Crews, W.B., & Stoddard, K. (1987). Analysis of mathematics competence of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Special Education, 21, 97-107.
Baroody, A.J., & Hume, J. (1991). Meaningful mathematics instruction: The case of fractions. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 54-68.
6.
Battista, M.T. (1999). The mathematical miseducation of America's youth: Ignoring research and scientific study in education. Phi Delta Kappan,80, 424-433.
7.
Beaton, A.E., Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E.J., Kelly, D.L., & Smith, T.A. (1996). Mathematics achievement in the middle school years: IEA's third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Center .
8.
Bottge, B.A. (1999). Effects of contextualized math instruction on problem solving of average and below-average achieving students. Journal of Special Education, 33, 81-92.
9.
Bottge, B.A., & Hasselbring, T.S. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children, 59, 556-566.
10.
Bottge, B.A., Heinrichs, M., Chan, S., & Serlin, R. (2000). Effects of enhanced anchors on the math performance of low-achieving adolescents. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
11.
Bransford, J.D., Goin, L.I., Hasselbring, T.S., Kinzer, C.K., Sherwood, R.D., & Williams, S.M. (1988). Learning with technology: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Peabody Journal of Education, 64(1), 5-26.
12.
Bransford, J., Hasselbring, T., Barron, B., Kulewicz, S., Littlefield, J., & Goin, L. (1988). Uses of macro-contexts to facilitate mathematical thinking. In R. I. Charles & E. A. Silver (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 125-180). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
13.
Bransford, J.D., & Vye, N.J. (1989). A perspective on cognitive research and its implications for instruction. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 173-205). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
14.
Bransford, J.D., Zech, L., Schwartz, D., Vye, N., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1996). Fostering mathematical thinking. In R. J. Sternberg & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 203-250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
Brophy, J. (1986). Teaching and learning mathematics: Where research should be going. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 17, 323-346.
16.
Brophy, J.E., & Good, T.L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
17.
Brown, A.L., & Campione, J.C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Shauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning . Educational Researcher, 17(1), 32-41.
19.
Bruner, J.S. (1960). The process of education. New York: Random House.
20.
Carnine, D. (1997). Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 30, 130-141.
21.
Carpenter, R.L. (1985). Mathematics instruction in resource rooms: Instruction time and teacher competence. Learning Disability Quarterly , 8, 95-100.
22.
Cawley, J.F. (1985). Cognition and the learning disabled. In J. F. Cawley (Ed.), Cognitive strategies and mathematics for the learning disabled (pp. 1-32). Rockford, MD: Aspen.
23.
Cawley, J.F., & Miller, J.H. (1989). Cross-sectional comparisons of the mathematical performance of learning disabled children: Are we on the right track toward comprehensive programming?Journal of Learning Disabilities , 22, 250-255.
24.
Cawley, J.F., Parmar, R.S., Yan, W., & Miller, J.H. (1998). Arithmetic computation performance of students with learning disabilities: Implications for curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 68-74.
25.
Ceci, S.J., & Roazzi, A. (1994). The effects of context on cognition: Post-cards from Brazil. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence (pp. 74-101). New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. ( 1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Research, 19(6), 2-10.
27.
Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
28.
Darch, C.B., Carnine, D.W., & Kameenui, E.G. (1986). The role of graphic organizers and social structure in content area instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18, 275-295.
29.
Deci, E.L., & Chandler, C.L. (1986). The importance of motivation for the future of the LD field. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 19, 587-594.
30.
De Corte, E., Greer, B., & Verschaffel, L. (1996). Mathematics teaching and learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 491-549). New York: Simon & Schuster.
31.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
32.
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159-199.
33.
Edgar, E. (1987). Secondary programs in special education: Are many of them justifiable?Exceptional Children, 53, 555-561.
34.
Ellis, E.S. (1993). Integrative strategy instruction: A potential model for teaching content area subjects to adolescents with learning disabilities . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 358-383.
35.
Ellis, E.S. (1998). Watering up the curriculum for adolescents with learning disabilities: Part 2. Remedial and Special Education , 19, 91-105.
36.
Englert, C.S., Tarrant, K.L., & Mariage, T.V. (1992). Defining and redefining instructional practice in special education: Perspectives on good teaching. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15, 62-86.
37.
Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist , 34, 906-911.
38.
Gamoran, A., Porter, A., Smithson, J., & White, P. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 325-338.
39.
Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with learning disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 162-170.
40.
Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33, 18-28.
41.
Ginsburg, H.P. (1997). Mathematics learning disabilities: A view from developmental psychology. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 30, 20-33.
42.
Ginsburg, H.P. (1998). Mathematics learning disabilities: A view from developmental psychology. In D. P. Rivera (Ed.), Mathematics education for students with learning disabilities: Theory to practice (pp. 33-58). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
43.
Goldman, S.R., Hasselbring, T.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.
44.
Greeno, J.G. (1993). For research to reform education and cognitive science. In L. A. Penner, G. M. Batsche, H. M. Knoff, & D. L. Nelson (Eds.), The challenge in mathematics and science education: Psychology's response (pp. 153-192). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
45.
Greeno, J.G., & Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26.
46.
Groen, G., & Resnick, L.B. (1977). Can preschool children invent addition algorithms?Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 645-652.
47.
Hasselbring, T.S., Sherwood, R.D., Bransford, J.D., Mertz, J., Estes, B., Marsh, J., & Van Haneghan, J. (1991). An evaluation of specific video-disc courseware on student learning in a rural school environment (technical report). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Learning Technology Center.
48.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1993). Desituating cognition through the construction of conceptual knowledge. In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Context and cognition: Ways of learning and knowing (pp. 115-133). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
49.
Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Wearne, D. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher , 25(4), 12-21.
50.
Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
51.
Hofmeister, A.M. (1993). Elitism and reform in school mathematics. Remedial and Special Education, 14(6), 8-13.
52.
Hutchinson, N.L. (1993). Students with disabilities and mathematics education reform—Let the dialogue begin. Remedial and Special Education, 14(6), 20-23.
53.
Jones, E.D., Wilson, R., & Bhojwani, S. (1997). Mathematics instruction for secondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 30, 151-163.
54.
Knapp, M.S., & Turnbull, B.J. (1990). Better schooling for the children of poverty: Alternatives to conventional wisdom (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation.
55.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
56.
Lave, J. (1993). Word problems: A microcosm of theories of learning . In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Context and cognition: Ways of learning and knowing (pp. 74-92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
57.
Lave, J., Smith, S., & Butler, M. (1988). Problem solving as an everyday practice. In R. I. Charles & E. A. Silver (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 61-81). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
58.
Lester, F.K., Jr. (1985). Methodological considerations in research on mathematical problem-solving instruction. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 41-69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
59.
Mack, N.K. (1990). Learning fractions with understanding: Building on informal knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 16-32.
60.
MacMillan, D.L., Keogh, B.K., & Jones, R.L. (1986). Special educational research on mildly handicapped learners. In W. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 686-724). New York: Macmillan.
61.
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., & Shiah, S. (1991). Mathematics instruction for learning disabled students: A review of research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 89-98.
62.
Mayer, R.E. (1985). Implications of cognitive psychology for instruction in mathematical problem solving. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 123-138). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
63.
Meltzer, L.J. (1994). Assessment of learning disabilities: The challenge of evaluating the cognitive strategies and processes underlying learning. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities (pp. 571-606). Baltimore: Brookes.
64.
Mercer, C.D., Harris, C.A., & Miller, S.P. (1993). Reforming reforms in mathematics. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 14-19.
65.
Mercer, C.D., Jordan, L., & Miller, S.P. (1994). Implications of constructivism for teaching math to students with moderate to mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 290-306.
66.
Mercer, C.D., & Miller, S.P. (1992). Teaching students with learning problems in math to acquire, understand, and apply basic math facts. Remedial and Special Education, 13(3), 19-35, 61.
67.
Miller, S.P., & Mercer, C.D. (1998). Educational aspects of mathematics disabilities . In D. P. Rivera (Ed.), Mathematics education for students with learning disabilities: Theory to practice (pp. 81-96). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
68.
Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 25, 230-248.
69.
Montague, M., Applegate, G., & Marquard, K. (1993). Cognitive strategy instruction and mathematical problem-solving performance of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 223-232.
70.
Montague, M., & Bos, C. (1986). The effect of cognitive strategy training on verbal math problem solving performance of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 26-33.
71.
Morris, D.R. (1997). Adrift in the sea of innovations: A response to Alexander, Murphy, and Woods. Educational Researcher, 26(4), 22-26.
72.
Mtetwa, D., & Garofalo, J. (1989). Beliefs about mathematics: An overlooked aspect of student difficulties. Academic Therapy, 24, 611-618.
73.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 1989). Evaluation standards: Curriculum and evaluation for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author .
74.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
75.
National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
76.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement. ( 1992). NAEP 1992 trends in academic progress. Washington, DC: Author.
77.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction , 1, 117-175.
Peterson, P.L., Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. (1991). Using children's mathematical knowledge. In B. Means, C. Chelemer, & M. Knapp (Eds.), Teaching advanced skills to at-risk students (pp. 68-101). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
80.
Phelps, A., & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (1997). School to work transitions for youth with disabilities: A review of outcomes and practices. Review of Educational Research, 67, 197-226.
81.
Polloway, E.A., Patton, J.R., Epstein, M.H., & Smith, T.E.C. (1989). Comprehensive curriculum for students with mild handicaps. Focus onExceptional Children, 21(8), 1-12.
82.
Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
83.
Polya, G. (1962). Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning, and teaching problem solving (Vol, 2). New York: Wiley.
84.
Resnick, L.B., & Ford, W.W. (1981). The psychology of mathematics for instruction . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
85.
Rivera, D.M. (1993). Examining mathematics reform and the implications for students with mathematics disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 14(6), 24-27.
86.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalian in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
87.
Salend, S.J., & Garrick Duhaney, L.M. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and without disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 114-126.
88.
Saxe, G.B., Dawson, V., Fall, R., & Howard, S. (1996). Culture and children's mathematical thinking. In R. J. Sternberg & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 119-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
89.
Scanlon, D., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (1996). Can a strategy be taught and learned in secondary inclusive classrooms?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 41-57.
90.
Schoenfeld, A.H. (1985). Metacognitive and epistemological issues in mathematical understanding. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 361-379). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
91.
Schoenfeld, A.H. (1989). Teaching mathematical thinking and problem solving . In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 83-103). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development .
92.
Scott, B.J., Vitale, M.R., & Masten, W.G. (1998). Implementing instructional adaptations for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 106-119.
93.
Silver, E.A. (1985). Research on teaching mathematical problem solving: Some underrepresented themes and needed directions. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 247-266). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
94.
Silver, E.A., & Stein, M.K. (1996). The QUASAR Project: The "Revolution of the Possible " in mathematics instructional reform in urban middle schools . Urban Education, 30, 476-521.
95.
Singer, J.A., Kohn, A.S., & Resnick, L.B. (1997). Knowing about proportions in different contexts . In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Learning and teaching mathematics: An international perspective (pp. 115-132). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
96.
Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence . New York: Cambridge University Press.
97.
Thorndike, E.L. (1922). Psychology of arithmetic. New York: Macmillan.
98.
Thorndike, E.L., & Woodworth, R.S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review, 8, 247-261, 384-395, 553-564.
99.
Torgesen, J., & Kail, R. (1980). Advances in special education. In B. K. Keogh (Ed.), Memory processes in exceptional children (Vol. 1, pp. 232-249). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
100.
Trent, S.C., Artiles, A.J., & Englert, C.S. (1998). From deficit thinking to social constructivism: A review of theory, research, and practice in special education. In P. D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nefad (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 277-307). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association .
101.
U.S. Congress. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act [Online]. URL: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/
102.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report forAmerica 2000. Washington, DC: The Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills.
103.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
104.
Wagner, R.K. (1994). Context counts: The case of cognitive-ability testing for job selection. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence (pp. 133-151). New York: Cambridge University Press.
105.
Weinstein, R.S., & McKown, C. (1998). Expectancy effects in "context": Listening to the voices of students and teachers. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 7, pp. 215-242). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
106.
Weinstein, R.S., & Middlestadt, S.E. (1979). Student perceptions of teachers interactions with high and low achievers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 421-431.
107.
Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. New York : Harper & Brothers.
108.
Whitehead, A.M. (1929). The aims of education. New York: Macmillan.
109.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S., & Rodriguez, D. (1998). The development of children's motivations in school contexts. In P. D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nefad (Eds.), A review of research in education (pp. 73-118). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
110.
Wilson, C.L., & Sindelar, P.T. (1991). Direct instruction in math word problems: Students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 57, 512-519.
