Competence in algebra is linked to access to higher education, employment in better-paying jobs, and, increasingly, the ability to earn a high school diploma. For many students with learning disabilities, developing proficiency in algebra represents a challenging, but necessary goal. Teachers of students with learning disabilities need access to assessment tools and instructional strategies that support algebra learning. This article reports research on a group of measures designed to monitor student progress in algebra and highlights findings specific to students with disabilities. In addition, evidence-based instructional strategies for algebra are summarized. Implications for practitioners and future research are discussed for both progress monitoring assessment tools and algebra instructional practices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllsoppD. H. (1997). Using classwide peer tutoring to teach beginning algebra problem-solving skills in heterogeneous classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 367–379.
2.
BerchD. B.MazzoccoM.M.M. (Eds.). (2007). Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
3.
BullR. (2007). Neuropsychological factors. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM.M.M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematics learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 265–278). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
4.
BuschT. W.EspinC. (2003). Using curriculum-based measurement to prevent failure and assess learning in content areas. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3–4), 49–58.
5.
ButterworthB.ReigosaV. (2007). Information processing deficits in dyscalculia. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM.M.M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematics learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 65–81). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
6.
CarpenterT. P.CorbinM. K.KepnerH. S.Montgomery-LindquistM.ReysR. E. (1981). Results from the second mathematics assessment of the national assessment of educational progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
9.
DeshlerD. D.AlleyG. R.WarnerM. W.SchumakerJ. B. (1981). Instructional practices for promoting skill acquisition and generalization in severely learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 405–421.
10.
DounayJ. (2007, March). High school graduation requirements: Mathematics [On-line database]. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Available: http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=900.
11.
EspinC.ShinJ.BuschT. W. (2005). Curriculum-based measurement in the content areas: Vocabulary matching as an indicator of progress in social studies learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 353–363.
12.
FoegenA. (2003). Project AAIMS: Algebra assessment and instruction — Meeting standards. Grant proposal submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
13.
FoegenA.JibanC. L.DenoS. L. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 41, 121–139.
14.
FoegenA.OlsonJ. R.Impecoven-LindL. (in press). Developing progress monitoring measures for secondary mathematics: An illustration in algebra. Assesment for Effective Instruction.
15.
FoegenA.OlsonJ.PerkmenS. (2005a). Reliability and criterion validity of five algebra measures in districts B and C (Technical Report 7). Ames: Iowa State University, Project AAIMS, Department of Curriculum and Instruction. Available: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/aaims/Technical.html
16.
FoegenA.OlsonJ.PerkmenS. (2005b). Reliability and criterion validity of four revised algebra measures in Districts B and C (Technical Report 10). Ames: Iowa State University, Project AAIMS, Department of Curriculum and Instruction. Available: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/aaims/Technical.html
17.
FuchsL. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 188–192.
18.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.PhillipsN. B.HamlettC. L.KarnsK. (1995). Acquisition and transfer effects of classwide peer-assisted learning strategies in mathematics for students with varying learning histories. School Psychology Review, 24, 604–620.
19.
GearyD. C.HoardM. K.NugentL.Byrd-CravenJ. (2007). Strategy use, long-term memory, and working memory capacity. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM.M.M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematics learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 83–105). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
20.
GerstenR.ClarkeB.MazzoccoM.M.M. (2007). Historical and contemporary perspectives on mathematical learning disabilities. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM.M.M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematics learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 7–27). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
21.
GreenwoodC. R.DelquadriJ. S.HallR. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371–383.
22.
HechtS. A.VagiK. J.TorgesenJ. K. (2007). Fraction skills and proportional reasoning. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM.M.M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematics learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 121–132). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
23.
HutchinsonN. L. (1987). Strategies for teaching learning disabled adolescents algebraic problems. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 3, 63–74.
24.
HutchinsonN. L. (1993). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on algebra problem solving of adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 34–63.
25.
IvesB. (2007). Graphic organizers applied to secondary algebra instruction for students with learning disorders. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 109–117.
26.
JitendraA. K.HoffK.BeckM. M. (1999). Teaching middle school students with learning disabilities to solve word problems using a schema-based approach. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 50–64.
27.
KaminskiR.GoodR. H.III. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215–227.
28.
KoteringL. J.de BettencourtL. U.BrazielP. M. (2005). Improving performance in high school algebra: What students with learning disabilities are saying. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 191–203.
29.
LembkeE.DenoS. L.HallK. (2003). Identifying an indicator of growth in early writing proficiency for elementary school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3–4), 23–35.
30.
MacciniP.GagnonJ. C. (2006). Mathematics instructional practices and assessment accommodations by secondary special and general educators. Exceptional Children, 72, 217–234.
31.
MacciniP.HughesC. A. (2000). Effects of a problem-solving strategy on the introductory algebra performance of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 10–21.
32.
MacciniP.RuhlK. L. (2000). Effects of a graduated instructional strategy on the algebraic subtraction of integers by secondary students with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 465–489.
33.
MaheadyL.HarperG. F.MalletteB. (1991). Peer-mediated instruction: A review of potential applications for special education. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 7, 75–103.
34.
McConnellS. R.McEvoyM. A.PriestJ. S. (2002). “Growing” measures for monitoring progress in early childhood education: A research and development process for Individual Growth and Development Indicators. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 27(4), 3–14.
35.
McMasterK.EspinC. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing: A literature review. Journal of Special Education, 41, 68–84.
36.
MillerS. P.MercerC. D. (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.
37.
MillerS. P.MercerC. D. (1993). Using a graduated word problem sequence to promote problem-solving skills. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 169–174.
38.
MontagueM.BosC. (1986). The effect of cognitive strategy training on verbal math problem solving of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 26–33.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2003). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
41.
PerieM.GriggW.DionG. (2005). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2005 (NCES 2006-453). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
42.
PerkmenS.FoegenA.OlsonJ. (2006a). Reliability, criterion validity, and sensitivity to growth: Extending work on two algebra progress monitoring measures (Technical Report 12). Ames: Iowa State University, Project AAIMS, Department of Curriculum and Instruction. Available: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/aaims/Technical.html
43.
PerkmenS.FoegenA.OlsonJ. (2006b). Technical characteristics of two algebra progress monitoring measures: Reliability, criterion validity and sensitivity to growth (Technical Report 14). Ames: Iowa State University, Project AAIMS, Department of Curriculum and Instruction. Available: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/aaims/Technical.html
44.
PetrillS. A.PlominR. (2007). Quantitative genetics and mathematical abilities/disabilities. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM.M.M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematics learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 307–322). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
45.
PicciottoH. (1990). The algebra lab. Sunnyvale, CA: Creative Publications.
46.
Rittle-JohnsonB.SieglerR. S.AlibaliM. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skills in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346–362.
47.
SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D.LenzB. K.BulgrenJ. A.DavisB.GrossenB.MarquisJ. (2002). The educational context and outcomes for high school students with disabilities: Overview of the study and findings (Research Report #1). Lawrence: University of Kansas, Institute for Academic Success. (ERIC Doc. ED469287)
48.
SieglerR. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children's thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.
49.
SilverE. A.Kenney (2000). Results from the seventh mathematics assessment of the national assessment of educational progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
50.
SteckerP. M.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.
51.
U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Mathematics equals opportunity (White paper prepared for U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley). Washington, DC: Author.
52.
WagnerM.NewmanL.CametoR.LevineP. (2006). The academic achievement and functional performance of youth with disabilities: A report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Available: www.nlts2.org/reports/2006_07/nlts2_report_2006_07_complete.pdf
53.
WaymanM. M.WallaceT.WileyH. I.TichaR.EspinC. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120.
54.
WitzelB. S. (2005). Using CRA to teach algebra to students with math difficulties in inclusive settings. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3(2), 49–60.
55.
WitzelB. S.MercerC. D.MillerM. D. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 121–131.
56.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K.Deatline-BuchmanA. (2005). Effects of mathematical word problem-solving instruction on middle school students with learning problems. Journal of Special Education, 39, 181–192.
57.
ZamarianL.López-RolónA.DelazerM. (2007). Neuropsychological case studies on arithmetic processing. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM.M.M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematics learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 245–263). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
