High-quality core instruction in kindergarten and first and second grade is critical to prevent mathematics difficulties. Evidence-based critical features of instruction should be part of core instruction and be included in mathematics textbooks. This study examined lessons from kindergarten and first- and second-grade basal mathematics textbooks to determine the extent to which 11 critical features of instruction were present. Overall, results showed an “Approaching Acceptable” rating, meaning that the features were not fully incorporated. Implications include the need for textbook adoption committees to be mindful of the importance of including effective instructional practices when making textbook decisions and for teachers to scrutinize the components of lessons to determine if these features of effective instruction are included.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerS.GerstenR.LeeD. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73.
2.
BallD. L. (1992). Magical hopes: Manipulatives and the reform of math education. American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 16(2), 14.
3.
BaxterJ.WoodwardJ.OlsonD. (2001). Effects of reform-based mathematics instruction in five third-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 529–548.
4.
BrunerJ. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
BryantB. R.BryantD. P. (2007). Progress monitoring tools to determine student response to intervention. Manuscript in preparation.
6.
BryantD. P. (2005). Commentary on early identification and intervention for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 340–345.
7.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.GerstenR.ScammaccaN.ChavezM. (in press). Mathematics intervention for first and second grade students with mathematics difficulties: The effects of Tier 2 intervention delivered as booster lessons. Remedial & Special Education.
8.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.GerstenR.ScammaccaN.FunkC.WinterA. (2007). The effects of Tier 2 intervention on mathematics performance of first grade students with risk status for mathematics difficulties. Manuscript in preparation.
9.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.HammillD. D. (2000). Characteristic behaviors of students with LD who have teacher-identified math weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 168–177.
10.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.KethleyC.KimS.PoolC. (2004). [Findings from early grades teacher focus groups on mathematics instruction and struggling students.]Unpublished focus group raw data. The University of Texas at Austin.
11.
BryantD. P.SmithD. D.BryantB. R. (2008). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive classrooms. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
12.
CappsL. R.CoxL. S. (1991). Improving the learning of mathematics in our schools. Exceptional Children, 23(9), 1–8.
13.
CarnineD. (1991). Reforming mathematics instruction: The role of curriculum materials. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1(1), 37–57.
14.
CarnineD.DixonR.SilbertJ. (1998). Effective strategies for teaching mathematics. In Kame'enuiE.CarnineD. (Eds.), Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (pp. 92–112). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
15.
CarnineD.JitendraA. K.SilbertJ. (1997). A descriptive analysis of mathematics curricular materials from a pedagogical perspective: a case study of fractions. Remedial & Special Education, 18(2), 66–81.
16.
CarnineD.JonesE. D.DixonR. (1994). Mathematics: Educational tools for diverse learners. School Psychology Review, 23, 402–423.
17.
CarnineD.SilbertJ.Kame'enuiE. J. (1997). Direct instruction reading. Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Merrill.
18.
CarnineD.SilbertJ.Kame'enuiE. J.TarverS. G. (2004). Direct instruction reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
19.
CawleyJ. F.ParmarR. S.YanW. F.MillerJ. H. (1996). Arithmetic computation abilities of students with learning disabilities: Implications for instruction. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 230–237.
20.
DarchC.CarnineD.GerstenR. (1984). Explicit instruction in mathematics problem solving. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 350–359.
21.
DenoS. L.FuchsL. S.MarstonD.ShinJ. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 507–524.
22.
DeshlerD.EllisE. S.LenzB. K. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities. Denver, CO: Love.
23.
EdigerM. (2004). Psychology of lesson plans and unit development. Reading Improvement, 41(4), 197–207.
24.
EllisE. S.WorthingtonL. A. (1994). Research synthesis on effective teaching principles and the design of quality tools for teachers. Eugene: The University of Oregon, National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators.
25.
FuchsD.DeshlerD. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129–136.
26.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2001). Principles for the prevention and intervention of mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 85–95, 495–511.
27.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.BryantJ. D.HamlettC. L.SeethalerP. M. (2007). Mathematics screening and progress monitoring at first grade: Implications for responsiveness to intervention. Exceptional Children, 73(3), 311–330.
28.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.AppletonA. C. (2002). Explicit teaching for transfer: Effects on the mathematical problem-solving performance of students with mathematics disabilites. Learning Disablities Research & Practice, 17(2), 90–107.
29.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.KarnsK. (2001). Enhancing kindergarteners' mathematical development: Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 495–511.
30.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.PrenticeK.BurchM.HamlettC. L.OwenR. (2003). Enhancing third-grade students' mathematical problem solving with self-regulated learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 306–315.
31.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.YazdianL.PowellS. R. (2002). Enhancing first-grade children's mathematical development with peer-assisted learning strategies. School Psychology Review, 31, 569–583.
32.
GassS. M.VaronisE. M. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.
33.
GerstenR.JordanN. C.FlojoJ. R. (2005). Early identification and intervention for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 293–304.
34.
GoldmanS. R.MertzD. L.PellegrinoJ. W. (1989). Individual differences in extended practice functions and solution strategies for basic addition facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 481–496.
35.
GoldmanS. R.PellegrinoJ. W. (1987). Information processing and educational microcomputer technology: Where do we go from here?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 144–154.
36.
HudsonP.MillerS. P. (2006). Designing and implementing mathematics instruction for students with diverse learning needs. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
37.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. P. L. No. 108–446.
38.
JitendraA. K.CarnineD.SilbertJ. (1996). A descriptive analysis of fifth grade division instruction in basal mathematics programs: Violations of pedagogy. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 381–403.
39.
JitendraA. K.GriffinC.Deatline-BuchmanA.Dipipi-HoyC.SczesniakE.SokolN. G.XinY. P. (2005). Adherence to mathematical professional standards and instructional criteria for problem-solving in mathematics. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 319–337.
40.
JitendraA. K.Kame'enuiE.CarnineD. (1994). An exploratory evaluation of dynamic assessment of the role of basals on comprehension of mathematical operations. Education and Treatment of Children, 17, 139–162.
41.
JitendraA. K.SalmentoM. M.HaydtL. A. (1999). A case analysis of fourth-grade subtraction instruction in basal mathematics programs: Adherence to important Instructional design criteria. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 69–79.
42.
JonesE. D.WilsonR.BhojwaniS. (1997). Mathematics instruction for secondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 151–163.
43.
JordanN. C.HanichL. B.KaplanD. (2003). Arithmetic fact mastery in young children: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 103–119.
44.
JordanN. C.KaplanD.OláhL. N.LocuniakM. N. (2006). Number sense growth in kindergarten: A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for mathematics difficulties. Child Development, 77(1), 153–175.
45.
Kame'enuiE. J.CarnineD. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Simon & Schuster.
46.
KennedyL. M. (1986). Manipulatives: A rationale. Arithmetic Teacher, 33(6), 6–7.
47.
KroesbergenE.Van LuitJ. E. H. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 97–114.
48.
LeeJ.GriggW.DionG. (2007). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2007 (NCES 2007–494). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.
49.
MarshL. G.CookN. L. (1996). The effects of using manipulatives in teaching math problem solving to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11(1), 58–65.
50.
McLoughlinJ. A.LewisR. B. (2001). Assessing students with special needs (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
51.
MellardD. (2004). Understanding responsiveness to intervention in learning disabilities determination. National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://www.nrcld.org/publications/papers/mellard.shtml.
MillerD. L. (1993). Making the connection with language. Arithmetic Teacher, 40(6), 311–316.
54.
MillerS. P.HudsonP. (2007). Using evidence-based practices to build mathematics competence related to conceptual, procedural, and declarative knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 47–57.
55.
MillerS. P.MercerC. D. (1993a). Using data to learn about concrete-semiconcrete-abstract instruction for students with math disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8(2), 89–96.
56.
MillerS. P.MercerC. D. (1993b). Using a graduated word problem sequence to promote problem-solving skills. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8(3), 169–174.
57.
MonroeE. E. (1998). Using graphic organizers to teach vocabulary: Does available research inform mathematics instruction?Education, 188(4), 538–540.
58.
MonroeE. E. (2006). Math dictionary: The easy, simple, fun guide to help math phobics become math lovers. Honesdale, PA: Boyds Mills Press.
59.
MonroeE. E.OrmeM. P. (2002). Developing missing vocabulary. Preventing School Failure, 46(3), 139–142.
60.
NathanM. J.LongS. D.AlibaliM. W. (2002). Symbol precedence in mathematics textbooks: A corpus analysis. Discourse Processes, 33, 1–21.
61.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
62.
OkamotoY.CaseR. (1996). Exploring the microstructure of children's central conceptual structures in the domain of number. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(1–2), 27–58.
63.
PapeS. J.TchoshanovM. A. (2001). The role of representation(s) in developing mathematical understanding. Theory Into Practice, 40(2), 118–127.
64.
PiagetJ. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: The Viking Press.
65.
PorterA. C. (1989). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher, 18, 9–15.
66.
QuenemoenR.ThurlowM.MoenR.ThompsonS.MorseA. B. (2003). Progress monitoring in an inclusive standards-based assessment and accountability system (Synthesis Report 53). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved October 2, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis53.html.
SchellV. J. (1982). Learning partners: Reading and mathematics. The Reading Teacher, 35(5) 544–548.
69.
SilbertJ.CarnineD.SteinM. (1990). Direct instruction mathematics. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
70.
SimmonsD. C.Kame'enuiE. J. (2003, March). A consumer's guide to evaluating a core reading program, grades K-3: A critical elements analysis. Eugene: University of Oregon, Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement (IDEA). Retrieved October 2, 2007, from http://reading.uoregon.edu/curricula/index.php.
71.
SoodS.JitendraA. K. (2007). A comparative analysis of number sense instruction in reform-based and traditional mathematics textbooks. Journal of Special Education, 41(3), 145–157.
72.
SteelM. M. (2002). Strategies of helping students who have learning disabilities in mathematics. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 8, 140–143.
73.
SwansonH. L. (1999). Cognition and learning disabilities. In BenderW. N. (Ed.), Professional issues in learning disabilities: Practical strategies and relevant research findings (pp. 415–460). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
74.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM.LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York: Guilford Press.
75.
SwansonH. L. (2001). Reading intervention research outcomes and students with learning disabilites: What are the major instructional ingredients for successful outcomes?Perspectives, 27(2), 18–20.
76.
TraversN. L.SheckleyB. G. (2000). Changes in students' self-regulation based on different teaching methodologies. Paper presented at the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, Cincinnati, OH.
77.
University of Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts. (2002). Effective instruction for elementary struggling readers: Research-based practices. Austin, TX: Author.
78.
UttalD. H.ScudderK. V.DeLoacheJ. S. (1997). Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrctc objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18, 37–54.
79.
VaughnS.GerstenR.ChardD. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 99–114.
80.
WanzekJ.VaughnJ.VaughnS.WexlerJ.SwansonE. A.EdmondsM.KimA. (2006). A synthesis of spelling and reading interventions and their effects on the spelling outcomes of students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 528–543.
81.
WearneD.HiebertJ. (1988). A cognitive approach to meaningful mathematics instruction: Testing a local theory using decimal numbers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 371–384.
82.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2006). Elementary school mathematics. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
83.
WiigE. H.SemelE. M. (1984). Language assessment and intervention for the learning disabled (2nd ed.). New York, Macmillan.
84.
WongB. Y. (1993). Pursuing an elusive goal: Molding strategic teachers and learners. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(6), 354–357.
