Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of mathematics curriculum (standards based vs. traditional) on the performance of sixth and seventh grade students with disabilities on multiple-choice and open-ended assessments aligned to one state’s number and operations and algebra standards. It also sought to understand factors affecting student performance on assessments: ability status (students with and without disabilities), curriculum (standards based vs. traditional), and assessment type (multiple choice vs. open ended). In all, 146 sixth grade students and 149 seventh grade students participated in the study. A linear mixed model for each grade revealed students with disabilities did not perform better in either curriculum. Furthermore, curriculum type was not a significant factor affecting student performance; however, ability status, time, and assessment type were. The implications of these results are discussed.

Keywords

mathematics standards based inclusion research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Algozzine

O’Shea

D. J.

Crews

W. B.

Stoddard

(1987). Analysis of mathematics competence of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Special Education, 21, 97–107.

An open letter to United States Secretary of Education, Richard Riley. (1999, November 18). Washington Post, p. A5.

Andersson

(2008). Mathematical competencies in children with different types of learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 48–66.

Battista

M. T.

(2001). Research and reform in mathematics education. In Loveless

(Ed.), The great curriculum debate: How should we teach reading and math? (pp. 42–84). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Baxter

J. A.

Woodward

Olson

(2001). Effects of reform based mathematics instruction on low achievers in five third-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 101, 529–547.

Carroll

W. M.

(1998). Geometric knowledge of middle school students in a reform-based mathematics curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 97, 188–197.

Cawley

J. F.

(2002). Mathematics interventions and students with high incidence disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 2–6.

Cawley

Parmar

Foley

T. E.

Salmon

Roy

(2001). Arithmetic performance of students: Implications for standards and programming. Exceptional Children, 67, 311–328.

Chapin

S. H.

Illingworth

Landau

M. S.

Masingila

J. O.

McCracken

(2000). Prentice Hall middle grades math: Tools for success. Boston: Prentice Hall.

10.

Charles

R. I.

Illingworth

McNemar

Mills

Ramirez

Reeves

(2008). Prentice Hall mathematics. Boston: Prentice Hall.

11.

Cobb

Wood

Yackel

Nicholls

Wheatley

Trigatti

. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 3–29.

12.

Ellis

M. W.

Berry

R. Q.

III. (2005). The paradigm shift in mathematics education: Explanations and implications of reforming conceptions of teaching and learning. Mathematics Educator, 15(1), 7–17.

13.

Flanders

(1987). How much of the content in mathematics textbooks is new? Arithmetic Teacher, 35, 18–23.

14.

Fuson

K. C.

Carroll

W. M.

Drueck

J. V.

(2000). Achievement results for second and third graders using the standards-based curriculum Everyday Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 277–295.

15.

Geary

D. C.

Hamson

C. O.

Hoard

M. K.

(2000). Numerical and arithmetical cognition: A longitudinal study of process and concept deficits in children with learning disability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 236–263.

16.

Hanich

L. B.

Jordan

N. C.

Kaplan

Dick

(2001). Performance across different areas of mathematical cognition in children with learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 615–626.

17.

Honig

(1987). Foreword. In Caught in the middle: Educational reform for young adolescents in California public schools (pp. v–vi). Sacramento: California Department of Education.

18.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446 (2004).

19.

Jackson

H. G.

Neel

R. S.

(2006). Observing mathematics: Do students with EBD have access to standards-based mathematics instruction? Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 593–614.

20.

Jordan

N. C.

Hanich

L. B.

(2000). Mathematical thinking in second grade children with different forms of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 567–578.

21.

Jordan

N. C.

Kaplan

Hanich

L. B.

(2002). Achievement growth in children with learning difficulties in mathematics: Findings of a two-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 586–597.

22.

Kroesbergen

E. H.

Van Luit

J. E. H.

(2003). Mathematics intervention for children with special education needs. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97–114.

23.

Lappan

Fey

Fitzgerald

Friel

Phillips

(2004). Connected mathematics project. Boston: Prentice Hall.

24.

Liu

Raudenbush

(2004). A note on the noncentrality parameter and effect size estimates for the F test in ANOVA. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 251–255.

25.

McKnight

Crosswhite

F. J.

Dossey

Kifer

Swafford

J. O.

Travers

K. J.

. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective. Champaign, IL: Stripes.

26.

Miller

S. P.

Hudson

P. J.

(2007). Using evidence-based practices to build mathematics competence related to conceptual, procedural, and declarative knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22(1), 47–57.

27.

Miller

S. P.

Mercer

C. D.

(1997). Educational aspects of mathematics disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 47–56.

28.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

29.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and NCTM standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

30.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

31.

National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

32.

Parmar

R. S.

Cawley

J. F.

Frazita

R. R.

(1996). Word problem-solving by students with and without mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62, 415–429.

33.

Parmar

R. S.

Cawley

J. F.

Miller

J. H.

(1994). Differences in mathematics performance between students with learning disabilities and students with mild retardation. Exceptional Children, 60, 549–563.

34.

Porter

(1989). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher, 18, 9–15.

35.

Reys

R. E.

(2001). Curricular controversy in the math wars: A battle without winners. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 255–258.

36.

Reys

Lapan

Holliday

Wasman

(2003). Assessing the impact of standards-based middle grades mathematics curriculum materials on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 74–83.

37.

Riordan

J. E.

Noyce

P. E.

(2001). The impact of two standards-based mathematics curricula on student achievement in Massachusetts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 368–398.

38.

Ross

(2001). The math wars. Navigator. Retrieved May 22, 2006, from http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth–245-The_Math_Wars.aspx

39.

Russell

R. L.

Ginsburg

H. P.

(1984). Cognitive analysis of children's mathematics difficulties. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 217–244.

40.

Schmidt

Houang

Cogan

(2002, Summer). A coherent curriculum: The case of mathematics. American Educator, 26, 1–17.

41.

Schmidt

W. H.

McKnight

C. C.

Houang

R. T.

Wang

H. C.

Wiley

D. E.

Cogan

L. S.

. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

42.

Schoen

H. L.

Fey

J. T.

Hirsch

C. R.

Coxford

A. F.

(1999). Issues and options in the math wars. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 444–453.

43.

Shenk

S. L.

Thompson

D. R.

(2003). School mathematics curricula: Recommendations and issues. In Shenk

S. L.

Thompson

D. R.

(Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 3–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

44.

Stecker

P. M.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

(2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.

45.

Wood

Sellers

(1997). Deepening the analysis: A longitudinal assessment of problem-centered mathematics projects. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 163–186.

46.

Woodward

(2004). Mathematics reform in the US: Past to present. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 16–31.

47.

Woodward

Baxter

(1997). The effects of an innovative approach to mathematics on academically low-achieving students in inclusive settings. Exceptional Children, 63, 373–388.

48.

Woodward

Brown

(2006). Meeting the curricular needs of academically low-achieving students in middle grade mathematics. Journal of Special Education, 3, 151–159.

49.

Woodward

Montague

(2002). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with LD. Journal of Special Education, 36, 89–101.

50.

Xin

Y. P.

Jitendra

A. K.

Deatline-Buchman

(2005). Effects of mathematical word problem-solving instruction on middle school students with learning problems. Journal of Special Education, 39, 181–192.

51.

Yell

M. L.

Drasgow

(2005). No Child Left Behind: A guide for professionals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mathematical Performance of Students With Disabilities in Middle School Standards-Based and Traditional Curricula

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References