High content standards, special education legislation, and new considerations regarding curriculum are pressuring teachers to improve the intellectual quality of students' learning experiences. In mathematics, students are expected to develop more sophisticated problem-solving skills at an earlier age. To date, there is little research to show how to accomplish this objective with students who have been unsuccessful in math. This study describes how students in a remedial math class fared in comparison to prealgebra students on video-based and applied problems aligned to current math standards. Results showed that students in the remedial class matched the problem-solving performance of students in the prealgebra classes. Accounts of individual performances elaborated how students' understandings evolved and provided important implications for instructional practice.
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 .
3.
Bottge, B.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.
4.
Bottge, B.A. (2001a). Reconceptualizing math problem solving for low-achieving students. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 102-112.
5.
Bottge, B.A. (2001b). Using intriguing problems to improve math skills . Educational Leadership, 58(6), 68-72.
6.
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.
7.
Bottge, B.A., Heinrichs, M., Chan, S.Y., & Watson, E. (2000). Enhancing procedural and conceptual knowledge with contextualized math problems. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center for Education Research.
8.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning . Educational Researcher, 17(1), 32-41.
9.
Bruner, J.S. (1960). The process of education. New York: Random House.
10.
Cawley, J.F., Kahn, H., & Tedesco, A. (1989). Vocational education and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 284-290.
11.
Cawley, J., Parmar, R., Foley, T.E., Salmon, S., & Roy, S. (2001). Arithmetic performance of students: Implications for standards and programming. Exceptional Children, 67, 311-328.
12.
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.
13.
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4-15.
14.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. ( 1997). The Jasper Project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
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.
16.
Dewey, J. (1930). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.
17.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
18.
Ellis, E.S. (1998). Watering up the curriculum for adolescents with learning disabilities, Part 2. Remedial and Special Education , 19, 91-105.
19.
Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with learning disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 162-170.
20.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (1998). Real world use of scientific concepts: Integrating situated cognition with explicit instruction. Exceptional Children, 65, 23-35.
21.
Gersten, R., Baker, S., & Lloyd, J.W. (2000). Designing high-quality research in special education: Group experimental design. The Journal of Special Education , 34, 2-18.
22.
Ginsburg, H.P. (1997). Mathematics learning disabilities: A view from developmental psychology. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 30, 20-33.
23.
Goldman, S.R., Hasselbring, T.S., & Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). Achieving meaningful mathematics literacy for students with learning disabilities. In D. P. Rivera (Ed.), Mathematics education for students with learning disabilities: Theory to practice (pp. 237-254). Austin, TX : PRO-ED.
24.
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.
25.
Greeno, J.G., & The Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26.
26.
Hanley-Maxwell, C., Phelps, L.A., Braden, J., & Warren, V. (1999). Schools of authentic and inclusive learning. Madison: The University of Wisconsin, Center for Education Research.
27.
Hofmeister, A.M. (1993). Elitism and reform in school mathematics. Remedial and Special Education, 14(6), 8-13.
28.
Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65-70.
29.
Hutchinson, N.L. (1993). Students with disabilities and mathematics education reform-Let the dialogue begin. Remedial and Special Education , 14(6), 20-23.
30.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. 20 U.S.C., § 1415.
31.
Laird, N. (1983). Further comparative analyses of pretest-posttest research. The American Statistician, 37, 329-330.
32.
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.
33.
Learning Technology Center at Vanderbilt University. (1996). The new adventures of Jasper Woodbury [Videodisc] . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34.
Lesh, R., & Kelly, A. (2000). Multitiered teaching experiments. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 197-230). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
35.
Microsoft Corp. (1998). Microsoft Word 98 (Macintosh ed.) [Computer software]. Seattle: Author.
36.
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.
37.
Mtetwa, D., & Garolfalo, J. (1989). Beliefs about mathematics: An overlooked aspect of student difficulties. Academic Therapy, 24, 611-618.
38.
Murnane, R.J., & Levy, F. (1996). Teaching the new basic skills. New York: Free Press.
39.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics . Reston, VA: Author.
40.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
41.
National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board. (1999). Investing in learning: A policy statement on research in education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
42.
Newmann, F., Marks, H., & Gamoran, A. (1995). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center on Organization and Restructuring Schools.
43.
Newmann, F.M., Secada, W.G., & Wehlage, G.G. (1995). A guide to authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards, and scoring. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
44.
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.
45.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 376-391). New York: Macmillan.
46.
Seaman, M.A., Levin, J.R., & Serlin, R.C. (1991). New developments in pairwise multiple comparisons: Some powerful and practicable procedures. Psychological Bulletin,110, 577-586.
47.
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G.R. (1977). Applying behavior analysis procedures with children and youth. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
48.
Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. New York : Harper & Brothers.
49.
Whitehead, A.M. (1929). The aims of education. New York: Macmillan.
50.
Wilkinson, G.S. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test 3. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.
