A random sample of 167 secondary special and general educators who taught math to students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) and learning disabilities (LD) responded to a mail survey. The survey examined teacher perceptions of (a) definition of math; (b) familiarity with course topics; (c) effectiveness of methods courses; (d) preparation to use and frequency of use of effective instructional strategies; and (e) factors contributing to the use of effective instructional strategies. The number of methods courses taken by teachers uniquely and significantly contributed to the number of effective instructional approaches that both general and special educators reported using. Significantly more special educators than general educators reported the use of specific, empirically validated instructional practices. Additional results, implications, and suggestions for future research are provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Algozzine, B., O'Shea, D.J., Crews, W.B., & Stoddard, K. (1987). Analysis of mathematics competence of learning disabled adolescents. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 97—107.
2.
Allsopp, D.H. (1997). Using classwide peer tutoring to teach beginning algebra problem-solving skills in heterogeneous classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 367—379.
3.
Bernstein, B. (1997). Message and meaning: The Third International Math and Science Study. Educational Horizons, 76(1), 23—27.
4.
Blank, R., & Dalkilic, M. (1992). State policies on science and mathematics education . Washington, DC: State Education Assessment Center, Council of Chief State School Officers.
5.
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.
6.
Bottge, B., & 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., & Serlin, R.C. (2001). Anchoring adolescents' understanding of math concepts in rich problem-solving environments. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 299—314.
8.
Bottge, B.A., Heinrichs, M., Mehta, Z.D., & Hung, Y. (2002). Weighing the benefits of anchored math instruction for students with disabilities in general education classes. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 186—200.
9.
Braswell, J.S., Lutkus, A.D., Grigg, W.S., Santapau, S.L., Tay-Lim, B.S.H., & Johnson, M.S. (2001). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2000. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics .
10.
Brown, A.L., & Palincsar, A.S. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from texts by means of informed, self-control training. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2(1), 1—17.
11.
Calhoon, M.B., Fuchs, L.S., & Hamlett, C.L. (2000). Effects of computer-based test accommodations on mathematics performance assessments for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 271—282.
12.
Carlson, E., Lee, H., Schroll, K., Klein, S., & Willig, S. (2002). Study of personnel needs in special education (SPeNSE) final report. Rockville, MD: Westat. Retrieved October 26, 2005, from http://ferdig.coe.ufl.edu/spense/FinalReportMethods_Pub.doc
13.
Carr, S.C., & Punzo, R.P. (1993). The effects of self-monitoring of academic accuracy and productivity on the performance of students with behavioral disorders . Behavioral Disorders, 18, 241—250.
14.
Culatta, R.A., Tompkins, J.R., & Werts, M.G. (2003). Fundamentals of special education: What every teacher needs to know (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall.
15.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives , 8(1).
16.
Ernst, P. (1988, August). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. Paper presented at the Sixth International Congress of Mathematical Education, Budapest. Retrieved May 16, 2004, from http://www.ex.ac.uk/~PErnest/impact.htm
17.
Fideler, E.F. (2000). State-initiated induction programs: Supporting, assisting, training, assessing, and keeping teachers. The State Education Standards, 1(1), 12—16.
18.
Fink, A. (1995). The survey handbook (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Gonzales, P., Guzman, J.C., Partelow, L., Pahkle, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., et al. (2004). Highlights from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003. (NCES 2005-005)Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center of Education Statistics.
20.
Guntner, P.L., & Denny, R.K. (1998). Trends, issues, and research needs regarding academic instruction of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 44—50.
21.
Graham, S., Harris, K.R., Fink, B., & MacArthur, C. (2003). Primary grade teachers' institutional adaptations for weaker writers: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 279—293.
22.
Hogan, S., & Prater, M.A. (1993). The effects of peer tutoring and self-management training on on-task, academic, and disruptive behaviors. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 118—128.
23.
Huntington, D.J. (1994). Instruction in concrete, semi-concrete, and abstract representation as an aid to the solution of relational problems by adolescents with learning disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56/02, 512.
24.
Hutchinson, N.L. (1993). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on algebra problem solving of adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 34—63.
25.
26.
Kelly, B., Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1990). Student error patterns as a function of curriculum design: Teaching fractions to remedial high school students and high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 23, 23—29.
27.
Koency, G., & Swanson, J. (2000, April). The special case of mathematics: Insu ficient content knowledge a major obstacle to reform. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
28.
Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J.C. (2000). Best practices for teaching mathematics to secondary students with special needs: Implications from teacher perceptions and a review of the literature. Focus onExceptional Children, 32(5), 1—22.
29.
Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J.C. (2002). Perceptions and application of NCTM's standards by special and general education teachers: Implications for practice for secondary students with emotional and learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68, 325—344.
30.
Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J.C. (2006). Nature and type of mathematics instructional approaches by special and general education teachers. Exceptional Children , 72, 217—234.
31.
Maccini, P., & Hughes, C.A. (2000). Effects of a problem-solving strategy on the introductory performance of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 10—21.
32.
Maccini, P., McNaughton, D.B., & Ruhl, K. (1999). Algebra instruction for students with learning disabilities: Implications from a research review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 113—126.
33.
Maccini, P., & Ruhl, K.L. (2000). Effects of a graduated instructional sequence on the algebraic subtraction of integers by secondary students with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 465—489.
34.
Manouchehri, A. (1998). Mathematics curriculum reform and teachers: What are the dilemmas?Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 276—286.
35.
Monk, D.H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13, 125—145.
36.
Montague, M., & Bos, C.S. (1990). Cognitive and metacognitive characteristics of eight grade students' mathematical problem solving. Learning and Individual Di ferences, 2, 371—388.
37.
Montague, M., Bos, C.S., & Doucette, M. (1991). Affective, cognitive, and metacognitive attributes of eighth-grade mathematical problem solvers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 145—151.
38.
Moore, L.J., & Carnine, D. (1989). Evaluating curriculum design in the context of active teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 10(4), 28—37.
39.
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E., Gregory, K.D., Garden, R.A., O'Connor, K.M., et al. (2000). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 1999 international mathematics report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Center .
40.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics . Reston, VA: Author.
41.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
42.
National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking, and Management. (1998). What the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) means for systemic school improvement . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 425 938)
43.
44.
Pachnowski, L.M. (1997). Teachers' definition of math: Creating and implementing an instrument. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Educational Researchers Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 417 941)
45.
Parmer, R.S., & Cawley, J.F. (1997). Preparing teachers to teach mathematics to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 30, 188—197.
46.
Quality Education Data (QED) School Personnel Database. (2000 —2001). Denver: Scholastic.
47.
Quinn, R.J. (1997). Effects of mathematics methods courses on the mathematical attitudes and content knowledge of preservice teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 91, 108—113.
48.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Witrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376—391). New York: Macmillan.
49.
Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., & Kain, J.F. (2000). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Retrieved December 3, 2003, from http://www.utdallas.edu/research/greenctr/Papers/pdfpapers/paper06.pdf
50.
Thompson, A.G. (1984). The relationship of teachers' conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 105—127.
51.
Thompson, S., Lazarus, S., & Thurlow, M. (2003). Preparing educators to teach students with disabilities in an era of standards-based reform and accountability (Topical Review 5) . College Park, MD: Educational Policy Reform Research Institute.
52.
Tooke, D.J. (1993). Student teachers' mathematical backgrounds and attainment of their secondary students. Clearing House (Menasha, WI), 66, 273—277.
53.
Wang, A., Coleman, A.B., Coley, R.J., & Phelps, R.P. (2003). Preparing teachers around the world (Policy Information Report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
54.
Weisberg, H.F., Krosnick, J.A., & Bowen, B.D. (1989). An introduction to survey research and data analysis (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
55.
Whittington, D. (2002). 2000 National survey of science and mathematics education: Status of high school mathematics teaching. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
56.
Wilson, L.D., & Blank, R.K. (1999). Improving mathematics education using results from NAEP and TIMSS. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, State Education Assessment Center . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 431 001)
57.
Witzel, B.S., Mercer, C.D., & Miller, M.D. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 121—131.
58.
Woodward, J., & Montague, M. (2002). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with LD. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 89—101.
