Challenging the Routines and Passivity That Characterize Arithmetic Instruction for Children with Mild Handicaps

Abstract

This article challenges the notion that rote practice in arithmetic computation should be the focus of instruction for children with mild handicaps in mathematics. Students were presented with worksheets containing two sample computation items and explored the characteristics of each item with the examiner. Students were then instructed to create items like the ones in the sample and answer them. Emphasis was on student production based on an understanding of the structure of the computation items. The performance of approximately 30 normally achieving students in Grades 3 through 6 was compared with that of grade-matched peers with mild handicaps. The results of the study indicate that students with mild handicaps are capable of understanding the characteristics of items well enough to create like items, though averaging 3 years behind their normally achieving peers. Of the items created by students in both groups, high percentages correct were evident. Neither normally achieving students nor students with mild handicaps engaged in mechanical repetition of items. A sample instructional activity is described at the end of the article.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson-Inman, L. (1987). Consistency of performance across classrooms: Instructional materials versus settings as influencing variables. The Journal of Special Education, 21(1), 9–30.

Baker, J., & Zigmond, N. (1989, April). Snapshots of an elementary school: Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate learning disabled students? Paper presented at the conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Cawley, J.F. (1985). Thinking. In J.F. Cawley (Ed.), Cognitive strategies and mathematics for the learning disabled (pp. 139–160). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Cawley, J. , & Chase, D. (1967). Productive thinking in retarded and non-retarded children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 37, 356–360.

Cawley, J. , & Miller, J. (1989). Cross-sectional comparisons of the mathematical performance of children with learning disabilities: Are we on the right track toward comprehensive programming? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 250–254.

Cawley, J. , Miller, J. , & Carr, S. (1989). Arithmetic. In G. Robinson , J. Patton , E. Polloway , & L. Sargeant (Eds.), Best practices in mild mental retardation (pp. 67–86). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Cawley, J.F. , Parmar, R.S. , & Miller, J.H. (1990). Arithmetic performance of learning disabled and non-handicapped students in the four operations. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Buffalo.

Cybriwsky, C. , & Schuster, J. (1990). Using constant time-delay procedures to teach multiplication facts. Remedial and Special Education, 11(1), 54–59.

Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.

10.

Dunlap, L. , & Dunlap, G. (1989). A self-monitoring package for teaching subtraction with regrouping to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analyses, 22, 309–314.

11.

Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.

12.

Dweck, C.S. , & Licht, B.S. (1980). Learned helplessness and intellectual achievement. In J. Garber & M. Seligman (Eds.), Human helplessness: Theory and application (pp. 217–240). New York: Academic Press.

13.

Elliott, E.S. , & Dweck, C.S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Development, 54(1), 5–12.

14.

Fincham, F.D. (1988). Children's reactions to failure: Implications for education. European Journal of the Psychology of Education, 3, 163–168.

15.

Fleischner, J. , Garnett, K. , & Sheperd, M. (1980). Proficiency in arithmetic basic fact computation of learning disabled and non-learning disabled children (Tech. Rep. No. 9). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, Research Institute for the Study of Learning Disabilities.

16.

Ford, B. (1975). Training productive thinking among retarded children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.

17.

McKnight, C. , Crosswhite, F. , Dossey, J. , Kifer, E. , Swafford, J. , Travers, K. , & Cooney, T. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing US school mathematics from an international perspective. Champaign, IL: Stipes.

18.

McLeod, T. (1985). Special education teachers and mathematics: Assessment, instruction, skill deficits and teacher preparation. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 7, 4–17.

19.

Meichenbaum, D. (1990, July). Cognitive behavior modification research. Paper presented at the Office of Special Education Projects, Project Directors' Meeting, Washington, DC.

20.

Rivera, D. , & Smith, D. (1988). Using a demonstration strategy to teach midschool students with learning disabilities how to compute long division. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 77–81.

21.

Shinn, M. , & Marston, D. (1985). Differentiating mildly handicapped, low-achieving, and regular education students using curriculum-based assessment procedures. Remedial and Special Education, 6(2), 31–38.

22.

Sweller, J. , & Cooper, G.A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem-solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59–89.

23.

Tisdall, W.J. (1962). Productive thinking in retarded children. Exceptional Children, 29, 36–41.

24.

Torgesen, J.K. (1977). The role of non-specific factors in the task performance of learning disabled children: A theoretical assessment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 27–35.

25.

Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler intelligence scale for children-Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.