etadd_47(3) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

erate disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 22–39. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Finelli, R., Courey, S. J., & Hamlett, C. L. (2004). Expanding schema-based transfer instruction to help third graders solve real-life mathematical problems. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 419–445. doi: 10.3102/ 00028312041002419 Garjria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225. Gast, D. L. (2010). Single-subject research in behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasiexperimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164. Haring, T. G., Kennedy, G. H., Adams, M. J., & Pitts-Conway, V. (1987). Teaching generalization of purchasing skills across community settings to autistic youth using videotape modeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 89–96. Horner, R. D., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196. Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of singlesubject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–180. Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., & Courtade, G. (2008). Teaching an algebraic equation to high school students with moderate developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 266–274. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM; 2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Neef, N. A., Nelles, D. E., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. P. (2003). Analysis of precurrent skills in solving mathematics story problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 21–33. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115, § 1425, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. (2002). Pugalee, D. K. (2005). Writing for mathematical under- standing. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon Publishers. Ryndak, D. L., & Alper, S. (1996). Curriculum content for students with moderate and severe disabilities in inclusive settings. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Ryndak, D., & Alper, S. (2003). The curriculum content and identification process: Rationale and overview. Curriculum and instruction for students with significant disabilities in inclusive settings (pp. 1–112). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Skibo, H., Mims, P., & Spooner, F. (2011). Teaching number identification to students with severe disabilities using response cards. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 124–133. Snell, M. E., & Brown, F. (Eds.). (2000). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (5 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Snell, M. E., & Brown, F. (Eds.). (2006). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (6 th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Snyder, E. P. (2002). Teaching students with combined behavioral disorders and mental retardation to lead their own IEP meetings. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 340–357. Van de Walle, J. A. (2004). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (5 th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Westling, D. L., & Fox, L. (2000). Teaching students with severe disabilities (2 nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill. Westling, D. L., & Fox, L. (2004). Teaching students with severe disabilities (3 rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Woodward, J., & Montague, M. (2002). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with LD. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 89– 101. Zambo, R. (2005). The power of two: Linking mathematics and literature. Mathematics Teaching in Middle School, 10, 394–399. Zisimopoulos, D. A. (2010). Enhancing multiplication performance in students with moderate intellectual disabilities using pegword mnemonics paired with a picture fading technique. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 117–133. Received: 6 July 2011 Initial Acceptance: 18 September 2011 Final Acceptance: 15 December 2011 388 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2012
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2012, <strong>47</strong>(3), 389–400 © <strong>Division</strong> on Autism and Developmental Disabilities Review of Academic Mathematics Instruction for Students with Mild Intellectual Disability Casey Hord University of Cincinnati Emily C. Bouck Purdue University Abstract: Mathematics education–like all education–faced changes in recent years including increasing expectations, and these expectations have impacted all students, including students with mild intellectual disability. To explore the impact of the changes on mathematics education on students with mild intellectual disability, the authors reviewed the literature from 1999–2010 on academic mathematics interventions for students with mild intellectual disability. Of the seven articles found, the majority focused on interventions designed to improve knowledge of mathematical facts and computational procedures. One study included an intervention involving metacognition and diagramming of mathematical relationships to help students solve word problems. Results suggest a dissonance between the mathematics focus of mathematics professional organizations and federal and state policies regarding higher order mathematics and perhaps current practice for students with mild intellectual disability, as reflected in the research literature. Mathematics education is a core content area with direct benefits for advanced education and employment for all students (Algozzine, O’Shea, Crews, & Stoddard, 1987; Maccini, McNaughton, & Ruhl, 1999; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000; No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2002; Xin, Jitendra, & Deatline-Buchman, 2005). Although mathematics education has always been important, its stake in education has risen over the past few decades. Recent federal education laws mixed with rising expectations of national professional organizations and changes in educational policy altered what is expected of all students, including students with disabilities (NCTM; NCLB; Teuscher, Dingman, Nevels, & Reys, 2008; Woodward, 2004). The latest reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)– called No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002)– required all students to participate in each state’s accountability system, meaning students were to be tested annually in grades 3–8 and once again in high school in reading, Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Casey Hord, PO Box 210002, Teachers/Dyer Hall, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221. Email: casey.hord@uc.edu mathematics, and science. Further, schools were to show Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP) to account for all students’ improvement as well as that of particular subgroups, such as students with disabilities, on their state’s accountability system (i.e., typically the large-scale general assessment in the reading, mathematics, and science) (Yell & Drasgow, 2005). Not only were students with disabilities included in the general education law but also the latest reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) aligned itself with NCLB regarding students with disabilities participating in the accountability system as well promoting access to the general education curriculum (Turnbull, Huerta, & Stowe, 2006). Also contributing to rising expectations for students with disabilities in mathematics education were changes in high school graduation requirements, including exit exams (Ysseldyke et al., 2004) and mandated upper level mathematics classes (Teuscher et al., 2008), as well as increasingly rigorous content area standards proposed by professional organizations (e.g., NCTM, 2000) and the recent Common Core Standards (Council of Chief State School Officers and National Governors Association, 2010). Exit exams, affecting 28 states as of 2010, require a student to pass a Mathematics and Students with MID / 389
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Autism an
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
ities. Scholars have argued that do
Page 9 and 10:
discussions were held with 12 addit
Page 11 and 12:
TABLE 1 A Sample of Community Funds
Page 13 and 14:
et al., 2007). At the school, stude
Page 15 and 16:
students opportunities to work and
Page 17 and 18:
Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K.
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
of words, and in the short term wer
Page 23 and 24:
TABLE 3 Word Lists List No. Trainin
Page 25 and 26:
TABLE 6 Pairwise Comparisons on Pos
Page 27 and 28:
Word Identification or Word Attack
Page 29 and 30:
erate to severe disabilities. Excep
Page 31 and 32:
ess in a variety of subjects includ
Page 33 and 34:
TABLE 1 Target Vocabulary Words by
Page 35 and 36:
Figure 1. Example of PowerPoint Sli
Page 37 and 38:
TABLE 3 Mean Percentage of Correct
Page 39 and 40:
Figure 4. Jake’s percentages corr
Page 41 and 42:
man-Martin et al. (2005) by demonst
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
used in the study that did not foll
Page 47 and 48:
lected. Stories were read in a quie
Page 49 and 50:
y determining the number of interva
Page 51 and 52:
with the removal of the interventio
Page 53 and 54:
Accordingly, recent research has in
Page 55 and 56:
Method Participants Four male child
Page 57 and 58:
TABLE 2 Play Scale - Developmental
Page 59 and 60:
elated utterances, which were used
Page 61 and 62:
Figure 1. Ian’s Progress in Play
Page 63 and 64:
Figure 3. Ryan’s Progress in Play
Page 65 and 66:
Figure 5. Social Validity: Average
Page 67 and 68:
(2000). A comparison of video model
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Method Participants Four high schoo
Page 73 and 74:
TABLE 1 Task Analyses for all Tasks
Page 75 and 76:
Figure 1. Holly multiple baseline g
Page 77 and 78:
Figure 3. Norman multiple baseline
Page 79 and 80:
ing at photographs. Jake only requi
Page 81 and 82:
tion, some aspects of the target be
Page 83 and 84:
table video aids may lead to greate
Page 85 and 86:
TABLE 2 Task Analyses Including Vid
Page 87 and 88: table.” During the session, the t
Page 89 and 90: Figure 2. Percent of steps with err
Page 91 and 92: ter the 15 th session. With table w
Page 93 and 94: our students, it may have been diff
Page 95 and 96: Education and Training in Autism an
Page 97 and 98: TABLE 2 Participants Demographic Da
Page 99 and 100: opening of the lesson, the teacher
Page 101 and 102: TABLE 4 Total Number of Items Answe
Page 103 and 104: Figure 2. Total number of procedura
Page 105 and 106: serve both cognitive (e.g., self in
Page 107 and 108: and quasi-experimental designs for
Page 111 and 112: & Cobb, 2002). Generalization, the
Page 113 and 114: academic activities in the classroo
Page 115 and 116: Procedure Baseline. In this multipl
Page 117 and 118: condition for each student. With th
Page 119 and 120: was repeated across all participant
Page 121 and 122: Boning, R. A. (1997). SRA Specific
Page 125 and 126: TABLE 1 Student demographic informa
Page 127 and 128: ping, dining out, voting) and diffe
Page 129 and 130: TABLE 2 Content Standards, Alternat
Page 131 and 132: Student Achievement Figures 3-6 pro
Page 133 and 134: Figure 4. Student data across math
Page 135 and 136: Figure 6. Student data across math
Page 137: A second limitation of the current
Page 141 and 142: y students with intellectual disabi
Page 143 and 144: TABLE 1 Studies of Mathematics Inte
Page 145 and 146: subject design to provide an interv
Page 147 and 148: Neef and colleagues (2003) demonstr
Page 149 and 150: abilities. Education and Training i
show all

etadd_47(3) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?