This study explored the performance of seventh-grade students with and without disabilities, educated in inclusive mathematics classes, on a mathematics assessment aligned to state standards with graphing calculators as an accommodation. The study used random assignment of classes to condition with students nested in classes. Students did not use a graphing calculator on the preassessment but approximately half (52.5%) had access to a graphing calculator on the post-assessment. The results indicate that students with disabilities made gains from preassessment to post-assessment but students without disabilities performed statistically significantly better on the post-assessment than did students with disabilities, F(1, 35) = 4.322, p = .045. The results raise concern about the validity of calculators as assessment accommodations for students with disabilities.
Bolt, S.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.
2.
Bouck, E.C. (2008). Does it add up? Calculator use by middle school students with and without disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.
3.
Burrill, G., Allison, J., Breaux, G., Kastberg, S., Leatham, K., & Sanchez, W. (2002). Handheld graphing technology at the secondary level: Research findings and implications for classroom practice. Dallas: Texas Instruments.
4.
Cawley, J., Parmar, R., Fley, T.E., Salmon, S., & Roy, S. (2001). Arithmetic performance of students: Implications for standards and programming. Exceptional Children, 67, 311-328.
5.
Elbaum, B. (2007). Effects of an oral testing accommodation on the mathematics performance of secondary students with and without learning disabilities . Journal of Special Education, 40, 218-229.
6.
Ellington, A. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of calculators on students' achievement and attitude levels in precollege mathematics classes . Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 433-463.
7.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.B., Hamlett, C.L., & Karns, K.M. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 3-24.
8.
Hembree, R., & Dessart, D.J. (1986). Effects of hand-held calculators in precollege mathematics education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 18-32.
9.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
10.
Langone, J. (2005). Foreword. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education research and practice (pp. xi-xii). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
11.
Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J.C. (2000). Best practices for teaching mathematics to secondary students with special needs. Focus on Exceptional Children , 32, 1-22.
12.
Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J.C. (2005). Mathematics and technology-based interventions . In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education research and practice (pp. 599-622). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design .
13.
Milou, E. (1999). The graphing calculator: A survey of classroom usage. School Science and Mathematics, 99(3), 133-140.
14.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2000). Principles and NCTM standards for school mathematics . Reston, VA: Author.
15.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425.
16.
Parmar, R.S., Cawley, J.F., & Miller, J.H. (1994). Differences in mathematics performance between students with disabilities and students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 60, 549-563.
17.
PBS. (1999). Invention of the hand-held calculator. Retrieved November 13, 2006, from http://www.pbs.org/transistor/background1/events/calc.html
18.
Shaftel, J., Belton-Kocher, E., Glasnapp, D.R., & Poggio, J.P. (2003). The differential impact of accommodations in statewide assessment: Research summary. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes . Retrieved March 5, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/TopicAreas/Accommodations/Kansas.htm
19.
Sireci, S.G., Scarpati, S.E., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457-490.
20.
Smith, B.A. (1997). A meta-analysis of outcomes from the use of calculators in mathematics education. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 787A.
21.
Standard & Poor's. (2005). School data. Retrieved August 9, 2006, from http://www.schoolmatters.com
22.
Texas Instruments. (n.d.). Retrieved November 13, 2006, from http://education.ti.com/educationportal/sites/US/homePage/index.html
23.
Tindal, G., & Fuchs, L. (1999). A summary of research on test accommodations: What we know so far. Lexington: University of Kentucky, Mid-South Regional Resource Center.
24.
Woodward, J., & Montague, M. (2002). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with LD. Journal of Special Education, 36, 89-101.
25.
Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., Seyfarth, A., Bielinski, J., Moody, M., & Haigh, J. (1999). Instructional and assessment accommodations in Maryland (Maryland/Kentucky Report 6). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes . Retrieved August 29, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/MdKy6.htm
