Success in high school algebra is gaining increased importance for all students, including those identified as having learning disabilities (LD). Despite its importance, we know little about what students with and without LD say about their algebra classes. This study examined findings from a survey of 410 general education students and 46 peers with LD. The survey established data relative to the participants' favorite and least favorite classes, most difficult (and best) parts of algebra class, and ideas for helping more students to succeed. In addition, student participants reported whether selected interventions and accommodations were helpful.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllsoppP. (1997). Using class-wide peer tutoring to teach beginning algebra problem solving skills in heterogeneous classes. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 367–379.
2.
BlackorbyJ.WagnerM. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transitional Study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399–413.
3.
BlackorbyJ.WagnerM. (1997). The employment outcomes of youth with learning disabilities: A review of findings from the NLTS. In GerberP.BrownD. (Eds.), Learning disabilities and employment (pp.57–76). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.)
4.
BottgeB.A.HeinrichsM.ChanS.Y.SerlinR.C. (2001). Anchoring adolescents' understanding of math concepts in rich problem solving environments. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 299–314.
5.
BottgeB.A.HeinrichsM.MehtaZ.D.HungY.H. (2001). Weighing the benefits of anchored instruction for students with disabilities in general education classes. Journal of Special Education, 354, 186–200.
6.
CawleyJ.MillerJ. (1989). Cross-sectional comparisons of the mathematical performance of children with learning disabilities. Are we on the right track toward comprehensive programming?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 630–634.
7.
ChambersD.L. (1994). The right algebra for all. Educational Leadership, 51, 85–86.
8.
Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2002). Bringing evidence-driven progress to education: A recommended strategy for the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author.
9.
EisenmanL.ChamberlinM. (2001). Implementing self-determination activities: Lessons from schools. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 138–147.
10.
ForgioneP.D. (1999). Achievement in the United States: Are students performing better?Washington, DC: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and the Workforce.
11.
GerstenR.KellyB. (1992). Coaching secondary special education teachers in implementation of an innovative videodisc mathematics curriculum. Remedial and Special Education, 13, 40–51.
12.
HaynesD. (1999). Grading our schools: Second annual report to North Carolina parents and taxpayers. Raleigh: North Carolina Alliance for Smart Schools.
13.
HornL.BerktoldJ.BobbittL. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research.
14.
HutchinsonN.L. (1993). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on algebra problem solving of adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 34–63.
15.
MacciniP.HughesC. (2000). Effects of a problem-solving strategy on the introductory algebra performance of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 15, 1–21.
16.
ManciniP.McNaughtonD.RuhlK. (1999). Algebra instruction for students with learning disabilities: Implications from a research review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 113–126.
17.
MansetG.SemmelM.L. (1997). Are inclusive programs for students with mild disabilities effective?Journal of Special Education, 31, 155–180.
18.
MilesD.D.ForchtJ.P. (1995). Mathematics strategies for secondary students with learning disabilities or mathematics deficiencies: A cognitive approach. Intervention in School and Clinic, 31, 91–96.
19.
MillerS.P.MercerC.D. (1997). Educational aspects of mathematical disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 47–56.
20.
MosesR.CobbC. (2001). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Boston: Beacon Publishing.
21.
MurrayC.GoldsteinD.F.NourseS.EdgarE. (2000). The postsecondary school attendance and completion rates of high school graduates with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 119–127.
22.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2001). The condition of education 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
23.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
24.
PattonM.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
25.
RoseD.H.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Baltimore: Association foi Supervision and Curriculum Development.
26.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
27.
United States Department of Education. (2002). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: 23rd annual report to Congress. Washington, DC: Author, Office of Special Education Programs.
