Comparisons of Mathematics Intervention Effects in Resource and Inclusive Classrooms

Abstract

In this article, we describe results of a reanalysis of two randomized studies that tested the effects of enhanced anchored instruction (EAI) on the fractions computation performance of students in special education resource rooms and inclusive mathematics classrooms. Latent class analysis and latent transition analysis classified students according to error subtypes and tracked their performance patterns. Results indicated that EAI was more effective than business as usual in reducing combining errors (e.g., adding denominators) and denominator errors (e.g., not finding common denominator) of students with disabilities (SWD) and students without disabilities in both settings. SWD in inclusive classrooms scored higher on the pretest than SWD in resource rooms, but EAI reduced the disparity on the posttest. An important additional finding revealed that the SWD who received more support from special education teachers in inclusive classrooms scored higher and made fewer errors than the SWD who were provided only limited support.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bailey

D. H.

Hoard

M. K.

Nugent

Geary

D. C.

(2012). Competence with fractions predicts gains in mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 447–455. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.06.004

Behr

M. J.

Lesh

Post

T. R.

Silver

E. A.

(1983). Rational number concepts. In Lesh

Landau

(Eds.), Acquisition of mathematical concepts and processes (pp. 91–126). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Bottge

B. A.

(2001). Reconceptualizing math problem solving for low-achieving students. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 102–112. doi:10.1177/074193250102200204

Bottge

B. A.

Heinrichs

Chan

Serlin

(2001). Anchoring adolescents’ understanding of math concepts in rich problem-solving environments. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 299–314. doi:10.1177/074193250102200505

Bottge

B. A.

Gassaway

Toland

Butler

Cho

S. J.

(2014). Effects of blended instructional models on math performance. Exceptional Children, 80, 423–437. doi:10.1177/0014402914527240

Bottge

B. A.

Rueda

Grant

T. S.

Stephens

A. C.

LaRoque

P. T.

(2010). Anchoring problem-solving and computation instruction in context-rich learning environments. Exceptional Children, 76, 417–437. doi:10.1177/001440291007600403

Bottge

B. A.

Rueda

LaRoque

P. T.

Serlin

R. C.

Kwon

(2007). Integrating reform-oriented math instruction in special education settings. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 96–109. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00234.x

Bottge

B. A.

Toland

M. D.

Gassaway

Butler

Choo

Griffen

A. K.

(2015). Impact of enhanced anchored instruction in inclusive math classrooms. Exceptional Children, 81, 158–175. doi:10.1177/0014402914551742

Bruner

J. S.

(1960). The process of education. New York, NY: Random House.

10.

Charalambous

C. Y.

Pitta-Pantazi

(2007). Drawing on a theoretical model to study students’ understanding of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 293–316. doi:10.1007/s10649-006-9036-2

11.

Clarke

D. M.

Roche

(2009). Students’ fraction comparison strategies as a window into robust understanding and possible pointers for instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72, 127–138. doi:10.1007/s10649-009-9198-9

12.

Collins

L. M.

Lanza

S. T.

(2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis: With applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

13.

Cook

Friend

(1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for effective practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(2), 1–12.

14.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2015). Rethinking service delivery for students with significant learning problems: Developing and implementing intensive instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 105–111. doi:10.1177/0741932514558337

15.

Fuchs

L. S.

Schumacher

R. F.

Sterba

S. K.

Long

Namkung

Malone

. . . Changas

(2014). Does working memory moderate the effects of fraction intervention? An aptitude-treatment interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 499–514. doi:10.1037/a0034341

16.

Geary

D. C.

(2006). Development of mathematical understanding. In Kuhl

Siegler

R. S.

(Vol. Eds.), Cognition, perception, and language (Vol .2, pp. 777–810). New York, NY: Wiley.

17.

Gillespie

Kanter

P. F.

(2000). Every day counts calendar math. Wilmington, MA: Great Source Education.

18.

Hansen

Jordan

N. C.

Fernandez

Siegler

R. S.

Fuchs

Gersten

Micklos

(2015). General and math-specific predictors of sixth-graders’ knowledge of fractions. Cognitive Development, 35, 34–49. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2015.02.001

19.

Hourcade

J. J.

Bauwens

(2001). Cooperative teaching: The renewal of teachers. Clearing House, 74, 242–247. doi:10.1080/00098650109599200

20.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § § 1400 et seq. (2006 & Supp. V. 2011).

21.

Kieren

T. E.

(1980). Knowing rational numbers: Ideas and symbols. In Lindquist

(Ed.), Selected issues in mathematics education (pp. 68–81). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

22.

Kurz

Elliott

S. N.

Lemons

C. J.

Zigmond

Kloo

Kettler

R. J.

(2014). Assessing opportunity-to-learn for students with disabilities in general and special education classes. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40, 24–39. doi:10.1177/1534508414522685

23.

Lanza

S. T.

Dziak

J. J.

Huang

Wagner

A. T.

Collins

L. M.

(2015). Proc LCA & Proc LTA users’ guide (Version 1.3.2). University Park, PA: Methodology Center. Retrieved from http://methodology.psu.edu

24.

Lazarsfeld

P. F.

Henry

N. W.

(1968). Latent structure analysis. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

25.

Mazzocco

M. M. M.

Myers

G. F.

Lewis

K. E.

Hanich

L. B.

Murphy

M. M.

(2013). Limited knowledge of fraction representations differentiates middle school students with mathematics learning disability (dyscalculia) versus low mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115, 371–387. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.01.005

26.

McLachlan

Peel

(2000). Finite mixture models. New York, NY: Wiley.

27.

Misquitta

(2011). A review of the literature: Fraction instruction for struggling learners in mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 109–119. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00330.x

28.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): 2015 mathematics assessment. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.

29.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): 1990, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015 mathematics assessments. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/

30.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2017). Access and equity in mathematics education. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Access-and-Equity-in-Mathematics-Education/

31.

National Dissemination Center for Children With Disabilities. (2010). Disabilities. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/disability/categories#id

32.

National Governors Association for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards in mathematics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math

33.

Nylund

K. L.

Asparouhov

Muthén

(2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 535–569. doi:10.1080/10705510701575396

34.

Pitkethly

Hunting

(1996). A review of recent research in the area of initial fraction concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30, 5–38. doi:10.1007/BF00163751

35.

Radatz

(1979). Error analysis in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 10, 163–172. doi:10.2307/748804

36.

Rea

McLaughlin

Walther-Thomas

(2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68, 203–222. doi:10.1177/001440290206800204

37.

Salend

S. J.

(2011). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices. Boston, MA: Pearson.

38.

Schoenfeld

A. H.

(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.

39.

Schwartz

(1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464. doi:10.1214/aos/1176344136

40.

Shin

Bryant

D. P.

(2015). A synthesis of mathematical and cognitive performances of students with mathematics learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 96–112. doi:10.1177/0022219413508324

41.

Siegler

R. S.

Pyke

A. A.

(2013). Developmental and individual differences in understanding fractions. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1994–2004. doi:10.1037/a0031200

42.

Siegler

R. S.

Duncan

G. J.

Davis-Kean

P. E.

Duckworth

Claessens

Engel

. . . Chen

(2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23, 691–697. doi:10.1177/0956797612440101

43.

Siegler

R. S.

Thompson

C. A.

Schneider

(2011). An integrated theory of whole number and fractions development. Cognitive Psychology, 62, 273–296. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.03.001

44.

Solis

Vaughn

Swanson

McCulley

(2012). Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 498–510. doi:10.1002/pits.21606

45.

Vaughn

Shay Schumm

Arguelles

M. E.

(1997). The ABCDEs of co-teaching. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 30(2), 4–10. doi:10.1177/004005999703000201

46.

Resnick

Hansen

Rodrigues

Rinne

Jordan

N. C.

(2016). Pathways to fraction learning: Numerical abilities mediate the relation between early cognitive competencies and later fraction knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 152, 242–263. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2016.08.001

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB