Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-x5cpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T22:43:24.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language and Technology: Partners in Helping Students with Disabilities Develop Numeracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Brian A. Bottge
Brian A. Bottge*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Madison
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Brian A. Bottge, Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison432 North Murray Street, Room 431, Madison, Wl 53706. E-mail: bbottge@education.wisc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Improving the mathematics skills of students with disabilities has long challenged both teachers and researchers. Not surprisingly, the research in this area has focused primarily on identifying and teaching students strategies for unlocking the meaning of text-based problems because most instructional materials and assessments define problem solving this way. However, text-based problems rarely generate the academic, attitudinal, and emotional responses in low-achieving students that problems in everyday life do. This paper describes how Enhanced Anchored Instruction (EAI) uses video-based math problems to promote the development of math skills in low-achieving adolescents.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 26 , Issue 1-2 , 2002 , pp. 3 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, P., & Dykman, R. (1995). Reading-disabled students with and without comorbid arithmetic disability. Developmental Neuropsychology, 11, 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Board of Studies NSW. (2002). Mathematics K-6 syllabus. Retrieved January 18, 2003, from http://www.bosnsw-k6.nsw.edu.au/ Google Scholar
Bottge, B. (1999). Effects of contextuaiized math instruction on problem solving of average and below-average achieving students. Journal of Special Education, 33, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottge, B. (2001). Reconceptualizing math problem solving for low-achieving students. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 102–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottge, B., & Hasselbring, T. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children, 59, 556–566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bottge, B., Heinrichs, M., Chan, S., & Serlin, R. (2001). Anchoring adolescents’ understanding of math concepts in rich problem solving environments. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottge, B., Heinrichs, M., Mehta, Z., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J., Goin, L., Hasselbring, T., Kinzer, C., Sherwood, R., & Williams, S. (1988). Learning with technology: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Peabody Journal of Education, 64(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J., Zech, L., Schwartz, D., Barran, B., Vye, N., & the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1996). Fostering mathematical thinking in middle school students: Lessons from research. In Sternberg, R. J. & Ben-Zeev, T. (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 203–250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In Schauble, L. & Glaser, R. (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Carpenter, T., Lindquist, M., Matthews, W., & Silver, E. (1983). Results of the third NAEP mathematics assessment: Secondary school. Mathematics Teacher, 76, 652–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cawley, J., Parmar, R., Foley, T., Salmon, S., & Roy, S. (2001). Arithmetic performance of students: Implications for standards and programming. Exceptional Children, 67, 311–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Corte, E., Greer, B., & Verschaffel, L. (1996). Mathematics teaching and learning. In Berliner, D. C. & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 491–549). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ellis, E. (1998). Watering up the curriculum for adolescents with learning disabilities—Part 2: Goals of the affective dimension. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englert, C., Tarrant, K.,’ & Manage, T. (1992). Defining and redefining instructional practice in special education: Perspectives on good teaching. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15, 62–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geary, D. (1993). Mathematical disabilities: Cognitive, neuropsychological, and genetic components. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 345–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geary, D., Hamson, C., & Hoard, M. (2000). Numerical and arithmetical cognition: A longitudinal study of process and concept deficits in children with learning disability. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 236–263.Google ScholarPubMed
Hadamard, J. (1945). Psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hanley-Maxwell, C., Phelps, L., Braden, J., & Warren, V. (1999). Schools of authentic and inclusive learning. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Research Institute on Secondary Education Reform (RISER) for Youth with Disabilities. Retrieved September 16, 2002, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/riser/Brief%201.pdf Google Scholar
Hickey, D., Moore, A., & Pellegrino, J. (2001). The motivational and academic consequences of elementary mathematics environments: Do constructivist innovations and reforms make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 38, 611–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved September 16, 2002, from http://www.iteawww.org/TAA/PDF/xstnd.pdf Google Scholar
Jerman, M., & Mirman, S. (1974). Linguistic and computational variables in problem solving in elementary mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 5, 317–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, N. & Hanich, L. (2000). Mathematical thinking in second-grade children with different forms of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 567–578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kulak, A. (1993). Parallels between math and reading disability: Common issues and approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 666–673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lave, J., Smith, S., & Butler, M. (1988). Problem solving as an everyday practice. In Charles, R. I. & Silver, E. A. (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 61–81). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
Masingila, J. (1993). Learning from mathematics practice in out-of-school situations. For the Learning of Mathematics 13(2), 18–22.Google Scholar
Mazzocco, M. (2001). Math learning disability and math LD subtypes: Evidence from studies of Turner Syndrome, Fragile X Syndrome, and Neurofibromatosis Type 1. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 520–533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meltzer, L. (1994). Assessment of learning disabilities: The challenge of evaluating the cognitive strategies and processes underlying learning. In Lyon, G. R. (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities. Baltimore, ML: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Mercer, C., & Miller, S. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, S., & Mercer, C. (1997). Educational aspects of mathematics disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mtetwa, D., & Garofalo, J. (1989). Beliefs about mathematics: An overlooked aspect of student difficulties. Academic Therapy, 24, 611–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murnane, R., & Levy, F. (1996). Teaching the new basic skills. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved September 17, 2002, from http://standards.nctm.org/document/index.htm Google Scholar
Newmann, F., Secada, W., & Wehlage, G. (1995). A guide to authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards, and scoring. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.Google Scholar
Norman, D. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7–14). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.Google Scholar
Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1989). Classroom dialogues to promote self-regulated comprehension. Advances in research on teaching, 1, 35–71.Google Scholar
Phelps, A., & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (1997). School to work transitions for youth with disabilities: A review of outcomes and practices. Review of Educational Research, 67, 197–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Panel on Educational Technology. (1997). Report to the president on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Retrieved September 17, 2002, from http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/k-12ed.html#exec Google Scholar
Rasanen, P., & Ahonen, T. (1995). Arithmetic disabilities with and without reading disabilities: A comparison of arithmetic errors. Developmental Neuropsychology, 11, 275–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, C., Menchetti, B., & Torgesen, J. (2002). Toward a two-factor theory of one type of mathematics disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rourke, B. (1993). Arithmetic disabilities, specific and otherwise: A neuropsychological perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 214–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scharff, R. (1989). Workshop math. New York: Sterling.Google Scholar
Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Metacognitive and epistemological! issues in mathematical understanding. In Silver, E. A. (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 361–379). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schoenfeld, A. (1989). Teaching mathematical thinking and problem solving. In Resnick, L. B. & Klopfer, L. E. (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 83–103). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Shepard, R., & Cooper, L. (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, J. (1999). Tracking the mathematics of automobile production: Are schools failing to prepare students for work? American Educational Research Journal, 36, 835–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 20 U.S.C. § 5801.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
White, J., Moffitt, T., & Silva, P. (1992). Neuropsychological and socio-emotional correlates of specific-arithmetic disability. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 7, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodward, J., & Baxter, J. (1997). The effects of an innovative approach to mathematics on academically low-achieving students in inclusive settings. Exceptional Children, 63, 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar