This article is part of a program of iterative research involving students with learning disabilities in reform mathematics classrooms at the intermediate grade levels. The study reports the findings from a larger, yearlong case study focusing on ways to improve problem solving through classwide performance assessment tasks and ad hoc tutoring for students with learning disabilities. The purpose of these interventions was to enhance a student's deeper understanding of mathematics and to develop the kind of strategic knowledge needed to solve complex problems. A quantitative analysis of the results indicate that these two interventions led to demonstrable differences over time and when compared to a limited number of students with learning disabilities who did not receive this kind of instruction. Qualitative analyses of student performance show two distinct trends in the improvement of the students in the intervention group. Findings from this study have implications for special educators interested in mathematical problem-solving instruction, as well as policymakers who are interested in performance assessment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallD. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373–397.
2.
BallD.RundquistS. (1993). Collaboration as a context for joining teacher learning with learning about teaching. In CohenD.McLaughlinM.TalbertJ. (Eds.), Teaching for understanding (pp. 13–42). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
BaxterJ.WoodwardJ.OlsonD.(in press). Effects of reform-based mathematics instruction in five third grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal.
BurnsM. (1995). Writing in math class. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications.
6.
CarpenterT. (1985). Learning to add and subtract: An exercise in problem solving. In SilverE.A. (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 13–42). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
7.
CobbP.BauersfeldH. (Eds.). (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
8.
ConnollyP. (1989). Writing and the ecology of learning. In ConnollyP.VilardiT. (Eds.), Writing to learn mathematics and science (pp. 89–102). New York: Teachers College Press.
9.
CrehanK. (1997, October). A discussion of analytic scoring for writing performance assessments. Paper presented at the Arizona Education Research Association, Phoenix, AZ.
GoodT.MulryanC.McCaslinM. (1992). Grouping in instruction for mathematics: A call for programmatic research on small group processes. In GrouwsD. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 165–196). New York: MacMillan.
12.
HiebertJ.CarpenterT.FennemaE.FusonK.WearneD.MurrayH.OlivierA.HumanP. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
13.
Iowa Test of Basic Skills. (1996). Iowa test of basic skills form M. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing Co.
14.
JitendraA.XinA. (1997). Mathematical word problem solving instruction for students with mild disabilities and students at-risk for failure: A research synthesis. Journal of Special Education, 30(4), 412–438.
15.
JohnsonC.BartonK.JohnsonR. (1999). Approaches to assessing writing: A content analysis of a national sample of writing rubrics. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Montreal, Canada.
16.
JohnsonR.PennyJ.GordonB. (1999). Score resolution and the inter-rater reliability of holistic scores. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Montreal, Canada.
17.
KingB. (1982). Using writing in the mathematics class: Theory and practice. In GriffinC.W. (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning: Teaching writing in all disciplines (pp. 39–44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
KulmG. (1990). Assessing higher order thinking in mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
19.
LampertM. (1997). Teaching about thinking and thinking about teaching, revisted. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understandings (pp. 84–107). London: Falmer Press.
20.
LeshR.LamonR. (1992). Assessment of authentic performance in school mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
21.
LinnR.L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 53–73.
22.
LinnR. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4–16.
23.
MayerD.P. (1988). Do new teaching standards undermine performance on old tests?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 53–73.
24.
McMillenL. (1986). Science and math professors are assigning writing drills to focus students' thinking. Chronicle of Higher Education, 22, 19–22.
25.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
26.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
27.
ReidD. (1998). Scaffolding: A broader view. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 385–396.
28.
ResnickL.ResnickD. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In GiffordB.R.O'ConnorM.C. (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 37–75). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
29.
RombergT. (1995). Reform in school mathematics and authentic assessmentAlbany: State University of New York Press.
30.
RombergT. (Ed.). (1992). Mathematics assessment and evaluation: Imperatives for mathematics educators. Albany: State University of New York Press.
31.
SmithM. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 8–11.
32.
StigginsR. (1997). Student-centered classroom assessment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
33.
StiglerJ.HiebertJ. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.
34.
StoneC. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344–364.
35.
ThurlowM.L. (1994). National and state perspectives on performance assessment and students with disabilities. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
36.
WebbN. (1993). Assessment in the mathematics classroom. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
37.
WilsonM. (1992). Educational leverage from a political necessity: Implications of new perspectives on student assessment for Chapter 1 evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 123–144.
38.
WoodwardJ.BaxterJ. (1997). The effects of an innovative approach to mathematics on academically low achieving students in inclusive settings. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 373–388.
39.
WoodwardJ.BaxterJ. (1999). The Reach project: Analyses of year 1 intervention data (TN99–2). Tacoma, WA: University of Puget Sound.
40.
WoodwardJ.BaxterJ. (2000). The Reach project: Analyses of year 2 intervention data (TN2000–1). Tacoma, WA: University of Puget Sound.
41.
WoodwardJ.BaxterJ.OlsonD.KlineD. (1996). The informed instruction project: Final report. Tacoma, WA: University of Puget Sound. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED409683)
42.
WoodwardJ.MontagueM. (2000, April). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Vancouver, Canada.
43.
XinY.JitendraA. (1999). The effects of instruction in solving mathematical word problems for students with learning problems: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 207–225.
44.
YingerR. (1985). Journal writing as a learning tool. Volta Review, 87, 21–33.
45.
ZigmondN.BakerJ. (2000). Full inclusion for students with learning disabilities: Too much of a good thing? In AbbedutoL. (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in educational psychology (pp. 69–80). Guilford, CT: McGraw-Hill.
