Mathematics: Educational Tools for Diverse Learners

REFERENCES

• Algozzine, B., O'Shea, D. J., Crews, W. B., & Stoddard, K. (1987). Analysis of mathematics competence of learning disabled adolescents. The Journal of Special Education, 21(2), 97–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anrig, G. R., & LaPointe, A. E. (1989). What we know about what students don't know. Educational Leadership, 47(3), 4–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Associated Press. (1993, September 2). U.S. pupils flunk mathematics tests. Eugene, OR: The Register-Guard, p. 7A.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, D. L. (1990). Prospective elementary and secondary teachers' understanding of division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 132–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baroody, A., & Hume, J. (1991). Meaningful mathematics instruction: The case of fractions. Remedial and Special Education, 12(3), 54–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barron, B., Bransford, J., Kulewicz, S., & Hasselbring, T. (1989, March). Uses of macrocontexts to facilitate mathematical thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, A. J. (1990). Mathematical power to the people. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 357–369.
   Google Scholar
• Bracey, G. W. (1993). The third Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 104–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1990). The condition of teaching: A state-by-state analysis (National Teacher Survey). Princeton, NJ: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Carnine, D. (1980). Preteaching versus concurrent teaching of the component skills of a multiplication algorithm. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11, 375–378.
   Google Scholar
• Carnine, D. (1989). Designing practice activities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 603–607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carnine, D. (1992). Expanding the notion of teacher's rights: Access to tools that work. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 13–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carnine, D., & Stein, M. (1981). Organizational strategies and practice procedures for teaching basic facts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12, 65–69.
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter, T. P., Corbitt, M. K., Kepner, H. S., Jr., Lindquist, M. M., & Reyes, R. E. (1981). Results from the second mathematics assessment of the national assessment of educational progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Cawley, J. F., & Miller, J. H. (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(4), 250–254, 259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooney, T. J. (1988). The issue of reform: What have we learned from yesteryear? The Mathematics Teacher, 81(5), 352–363.
   Google Scholar
• Corno, L., & Snow, R. E. (1986). Adapting teaching to individual differences among learners. In M. E. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, third edition (pp. 605–629). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Cowle, I. M. (1974). Is the “new math” really better? The Arithmetic Teacher, 21(1), 68–73.
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (Eds.). (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: Irvington/Naiburg.
   Google Scholar
• Cybriwsky, C. A., & Schuster, J. W. (1990). Using constant time delay procedures to teach multiplication facts. Remedial and Special Education, 11(1), 54–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darch, C., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1984). Explicit instruction in mathematics problem solving. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 350–359,
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, R. B. (1974, Feb.). New Math: Success/failure. Instructor, 83(6), 53–55.
   Google Scholar
• Dixon, R. C. (1993). Educational reform: Standards and the assurance of quality.
   Google Scholar
• Dixon, R., Carnine, D., & Kameenui, E. (1992). Curriculum guidelines for diverse learners. Monograph for National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators, Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
   Google Scholar
• Engelmann, S. (1993). Instructional design: Priorities and efficiency. LD Forum, 18(2), 5–8.
   Google Scholar
• Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Engelmann, S., Carnine, D., & Steely, D. (1991). Making connections in mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 292–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, D. G. (1990). Comparison of three instructional strategies for teaching borrowing in subtraction. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, C. W., Berliner, D. C., Filby, N. N., Marliave, R. S., Cahen, L. S., & Dishaw, M. M. (1978). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time and student achievement. In C. Denham & A. Leiberman (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 7–32). Washington, DC: Department of Education, National Institute of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser, R. (1966). Variables in discovery learning. In L. S. Schulman & E. R. Keislar (Eds.), Learning by discovery: A critical appraisal (pp. 13–29). Chicago: Rand McNally.
   Google Scholar
• Good, T. L., & Grouws, D. A. (1979). The Missouri Mathematics Effectiveness Project: An experiment al study of fourth-grade classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 355–362.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., & Ebmeier, H. (1983). Active Mathematics Teaching. New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Hammann, R. W., & Ashcraft, M. H. (1986). Textbook presentations of the basic addition facts. Cognition and Instruction, 3(3), 173–192.
   Google Scholar
• Hasselbring, T., Goin, L., & Bransford, J. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20(6), 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Heller, P. A., Post, T. R., Behr, M., & Lesh, R. (1990). Qualitative and numerical reasoning about fractions and rates by seventh-and eighth-grade students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 388–402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmeister, A. (1993). Elitism and reform in school mathematics. Remedial and Special Education, 14(6), 8–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.
   Google Scholar
• Kameenui, E., & Carnine, D. (1986). Preteaching versus concurrent teaching of the component skills of a subtraction algorithm of skill deficient second graders: A component analysis of direct instruction. The Exceptional Child, 33(2), 103–115.
   Google Scholar
• Kameenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of academic learning problems. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
   Google Scholar
• Keisler, E. R., & Shulman, L. S. (1966). The problem of discovery: Conference in retrospect. In L. S. Schulman & E. R. Keislar (Eds.), Learning by discovery: A critical appraisal (pp. 181–199). Chicago: Rand McNally.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, B., Dimino, J., Kameenui, E. J., & Carnine, D. (1993). Teachers' assessments of the adequacy of basal mathematics textbooks for the needs of diverse learners. (Technical Report). Eugene: University of Oregon, National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, B., Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1990). Student error patterns as a function of curriculum design: Teaching fractions to remedial high school students and high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 23–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendlar, H. H. (1966). Reflections on the conference. In L. S. Schulman & E. R. Keislar (Eds.), Learning by discovery: A critical appraisal (pp. 171–176). Chicago: Rand McNally.
   Google Scholar
• LaPointe, A. E., Mead, N. A., & Phillips, G. W. (1989). A world of difference: An international assessment of mathematics and science. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Macarow, L. (1970). New math. School Science and Mathematics, 70(5), 395–397.
   Google Scholar
• Mack, N. K. (1990). Learning fractions with understanding: Building on informal knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 16–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacMillan, D. L. (1982). Mental retardation in school and society (2nd ed.). Boston: Little Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, C. D., Harris, C. A., & Miller, S. P. (1993). Reforming reforms in mathematics. Remedial and Special Education, 14(6), 14–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 230–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montague, M., & Bos, C. (1986). The effect of cognitive strategy training on verbal math problem solving performance of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 26–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montague, M., & Bos, C. (1990). Cognitive and metacognitive characteristics of eighth-grade students' mathematical problem solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 109–127.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, R. (1973, June 4). New math just doesn't add up. Chicago Daily News, p. 5, cited in Rappaport, D. (1976). The new math and its aftermath. School Science and Mathematics, 76(7), 563–570.
   Google Scholar
• McKinney, J. D., & Haskins, R. (1980). Cognitive training and the development of problem-solving strategies. Exceptional Education, 1, 41–51.
   Google Scholar
• McKnight, C., Crosswhite, F., Dossey, J., Kifer, E., Swafford, J., Travers, K., & Cooney, T. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1992). NEAP 1992 mathematics report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, Report No. 23-ST02.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators. (1993). Survey of teachers' perceptions of new educational tools and teaching approaches. Eugene: University of Oregon.
   Google Scholar
• National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Offner, C. D. (1978). Back to basics in mathematics: An educational fraud. The Mathematics Teacher, 71, 211–217.
   Google Scholar
• Olenick, D. L., & Pear, J. J. (1980). Differential reinforcement of correct responses to probes and prompts in picture-name training with retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 77–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). Promoting metacognition and motivation of exceptional children. Remedial and Special Education, 11(6), 7–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellegrino, J. W., & Goldman, S. R. (1987). Information processing and elementary mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 23–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins, D. N., & Simmons, R. (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming. Review of Educational Research, 3, 303–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, A. C. (1989, June-July). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 9–15.
   Google Scholar
• Prawat, R. S. (1989). Promoting access to knowledge, strategy, and disposition in students: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 1–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pressley, M., Symons, S., Snyder, B. L., & Cariglia-Bull, T. (1989). Strategy instruction research comes of age. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 16–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rappaport, D. (1976). The new math and its aftermath. School Science and Mathematics, 76(7), 563–570.
   Google Scholar
• Research Advisory Committee. (1988). NCTM curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics: Responses from the research community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(4), 338–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnick, L. B., Nesher, P., Leonard, F., Magone, M., Omanson, S., & Peled, I. (1989). Conceptual bases of arithmetic errors: The case of decimal fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 8–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivera, D. M. (1993). Examining mathematics reform and the implications for students with mathematics disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 14(6), 24–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romiszowski, A. J. (1981). Designing instructional systems: Decision making in course planning and curriculum design. London: Kogan Page.
   Google Scholar
• Silbert, J., Carnine, D., & Stein, M. (1990). Direct instruction mathematics (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
   Google Scholar
• Snow, R. E. [in collaboration with E. Yalow]. (1982). Education and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 493–586). London: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson, H. (1992). Learning from Asian schools. Scientific American, 267(6), 70–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swing, S., & Peterson, P. (1988). Elaborative and integrative thought processes in mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 54–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tennyson, R. D., & Cochiarella, M. J. (1986). An empirically based instructional design theory for teaching concepts. Review of Educational Research, 56, 40–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tennyson, R. D., & Park, O. (1980). The teaching of concepts: A review of instructional design research literature. Review of Educational Research, 50, 55–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tennyson, R. D., Steve, M. W., & Boutwell, R. C. (1975). Instance sequence and analysis of instance attribute representation in concept acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 821–827.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornton, A. (1978). Emphasizing thinking strategies in basic fact instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9, 214–227.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1984). Alternative conceptions of intelligence and their implications for education. Review of Educational Research, 54, 179–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winn, J. A. (1994). Promises and challenges of scaffolded instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 89–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar