Applying a Universal Design for Learning Framework to Mediate the Language Demands of Mathematics

REFERENCES

• Abedi, J. & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(3), 219–234. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1403_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abell, M. M., Bauder, D. K. & Simmons, T. J. (2005). Access to the general curriculum: A curriculum and instruction perspective for educators. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(2), 82–86. doi:10.1177/10534512050410020801
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, F. B. (1988). Language and the learning of mathematics. Retrieved from http://pub47.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=3966629559&frmid=13&msgid=713912&cmd=show
   Google Scholar
• Allsopp, D. H., Kyger, M. M. & Lovin, L. H. (2007). Teaching mathematics meaningfully: Solutions for struggling learners. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Atkins, D., Bennett, J., Brown, J. S., Chopra, A., Dede, C., Fishman, B. & Williams, B. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Ausbrooks, R., Buswell, S., Carlisle, D., Dalmas, S., Devitt, S., Diaz, A. & Watt, S. (2008). Mathematical markup language (MathML) version 2.0 (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-MathML2-20031021/
   Google Scholar
• Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93, 373–397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow, A. T. & McCrory, M. R. (2011). 3 strategies for promoting math disagreements. Teaching Children Mathematics, 17, 530–539.
   Google Scholar
• Barton, M. L., Heidema, C. & Jordan, D. (2002). Teaching reading in mathematics and science. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 24–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter, J., Woodward, J. & Olson, D. (2001). Effects of reform-based mathematics instruction in five third grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 101, 529–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter, J. A., Woodward, J. & Olson, D. (2005). Writing in mathematics: An alternative form of communication for academically low-achieving students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 119–135. doi:10.1111/j.1540–5826.2005.00127.x
   Google Scholar
• Bay-Williams, J. M. & Livers, S. (2009). Supporting math vocabulary acquisition. Teaching Children Mathematics, 16, 238–246.
   Google Scholar
• Bley, N. S. & Thornton, C. A. (1995). Teaching mathematics to students with learning disabilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
   Google Scholar
• Bottge, B. A., Rueda, E., Serlin, R. C., Hung, Y-H. & Kwon, J. M. (2007). Shrinking achievement differences with anchored math problems: Challenges and possibilities. Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 31–49. doi:10.1177/00224669070410010301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouck, E. C. & Flanagan, S. (2009). Assistive technology and mathematics: What is there and where can we go in special education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(2), 17–30.
   Google Scholar
• Bouck, E. C., Joshi, G. S. & Johnson, L. (2012). Examining calculator use among students with and without disabilities educated with different mathematical curricula. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 369–385. doi:10.1007/s10649-012-9461-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R. & Hammill, D. D. (2000). Characteristic behavior of students with LD who have teacher identified math weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 168–199. doi:10.1177/002221940003300205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant, D. P., Smith, D. D. & Bryant, B. R. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, M. K. (2004). Writing in math. Educational Leadership, 62(2), 30–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Guarino Reid, L. & Vanderheiden, G. (n.d.). Web accessibility guidelines 2.0; guideline 4.1 compatible: Maximize compatibility with current and future user agents, including assistive technologies. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#ensure-compat
   Google Scholar
• Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (2005). Engagement, disengagement, coping, and catastrophe. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 527–547). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cass, M., Cates, D., Smith, M. & Jackson, C. (2003). Effects of manipulative instruction on solving area and perimeter problems by students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 112–120. doi:10.1111/1540–5826.00067
   Google Scholar
• Cawley, J., Parmar, R., Foley, T. E., Salmon, S. & Roy, S. (2001). Arithmetic performance of students: Implications for standards and programming. Exceptional Children, 67, 311–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Center for Applied Special Technology. (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Christle, C. A. & Schuster, J. W. (2003). The effects of using response cards on student participation, academic achievement, and on-task behavior during whole-class, math instruction. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 147–165. doi:10.1023/A:1025577410113
   Google Scholar
• Communication. (2015). In Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communication
   Google Scholar
• Dexter, D. D. & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 51–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donlan, C. (2007). Mathematic development in children with specific language impairments. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 151–172). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Dossey, J., McCrone, S., Turner, R. & Lindquist, M. (2008). PISA 2003—Mathematical literacy and learning in the Americas. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 8, 140–152. doi:10.1080/14926150802169289
   Google Scholar
• Draper, R. J. (2002). School mathematics reform, constructivism, and literacy: A case for literacy instruction in the reform-oriented math classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 520–529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fazio, B. B. (1994). The counting abilities of children with specific language impairment—A comparison of oral and gestural tasks. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 358–368.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fletcher, J. (2005). Predicting math outcomes: Reading predictors and comorbidity. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 308–312. doi:10.1177/00222194050380040501
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman, B. & Crawford, L. (2008). Creating a middle school mathematics curriculum for English-language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 29(1), 9–19. doi:10.1177/0741932507309717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Seethaler, P. M., Bryant, J. D. & Schatschneider, C. (2010). Do different types of school mathematics development depend on different constellations of numerical versus general cognitive abilities? Developmental Psychology, 46, 1731–1746. doi:10.1037/a0020662
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Finelli, R., Courey, S. J., Hamlett, C. L., Sones, E. M. & Hope, S. K. (2006). Teaching third graders about real-life mathematical problem solving: A randomized controlled study. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 293–311. doi:10.1086/503633
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 4–15. doi:10.1177/00222194040370010201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, R. & Butterworth, B. (2005). Number and language: How are they related? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(1), 6–10. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools—A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
   Google Scholar
• Gurganus, S. P. (2007). Math instruction for students with learning problems. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, T. (2002). Explicit instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from http://aim.cast.org/sites/aim.cast.org/files/ExpInstrucNov2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hannafin, M. J. (1981). Effects of teacher and student goal setting and evaluations on mathematics achievement and student attitudes. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 321–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannula, M. S. (2006). Motivation in mathematics: Goals reflected in emotions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 165–178. doi:10.1007/s10649-005-9019-8
   Google Scholar
• Harmon, J. M., Hedrick, W. B. & Wood, K. D. (2005). Research on vocabulary instruction in the content areas: Implications for struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21, 261–280. doi:10.1080/10573560590949377
   Google Scholar
• Harper, G. F. & Maheady, L. (2007). Peer-mediated teaching and students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School & Clinic, 43, 101–107. doi:10.1177/10534512070430020101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasselbring, T. S., Lott, A. C. & Zydney, J. M. (2006). Technology-supported math instruction for students with disabilities: Two decades of research and development. Washington, DC: CITEd, Center for Implementing Technology in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Hehir, T. (2009). Policy foundations of universal design for learning. In D. T. Gordon J. W. Gravel & L. A. Schifter (Eds.), A policy reader in universal design for learning (pp. 35–45). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hitchcock, C. (2001). Balanced instructional support and challenge in universally designed learning environments. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(4), 23–30.
   Google Scholar
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G. & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. 33 § 1400 et seq. (2004). Retrieved from www.ed.gov/policy/apeced/guid/idea2004.html
   Google Scholar
• Ives, B. & Hoy, C. (2003). Graphic organizers applied to higher-level secondary mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(1), 36–51. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00056
   Google Scholar
• Jerman, O., Reynolds, C. & Swanson, H. L. (2012). Does growth in working memory span or executive processes predict growth in reading and math in children with reading disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 144–157. doi:10.1177/0731948712444276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jitendra, A. (2002). Teaching students math problem-solving through graphic representations. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(4), 34–38.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, D., Kaplan, D. & 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. doi:10.1037/0022–0663.94.3.586
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan, N. C. (2007). Do words count? Connections between mathematics and reading difficulties. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 107–120). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, N. C., Hanich, L. B. & Kaplan, D. (2003). A longitudinal study of mathematical competencies in children with specific mathematics difficulties versus children with comorbid mathematics and reading difficulties. Child Development, 74, 834–850. doi:10.1111/1467–8624.00571
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, S. A, Wang, P. & Michaels, C. A. (this issue). Using explicit C-R-A instruction to teach fraction word problem solving to low-performing Asian English learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31.
   Google Scholar
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). Revising Bloom's taxonomy. Theory Into Practice, 41, 212–264. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroeger, S. D. & Kouche, B. (2006). Using peer-assisted learning strategies to increase response to intervention in inclusive middle math settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(5), 6–13.
   Google Scholar
• Leonard, J., Davis, J. E. & Sidler, J. L. (2008). Cultural relevance and computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 263–284.
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd, S. A. & Robertson, C. L. (2012). Screencast tutorials enhance student learning of statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 39(1), 67–71. doi:10.1177/0098628311430640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martiniello, M. (2008). Language and the performance of English-language learners in math word problems. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 334–367.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice, 41, 226–232. doi:10.2307/1477407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeil, N. M. & Alibali, M. W. (2005). Mathematics experience: All contexts are not created equal. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6, 285–306. doi:10.1207/s15327647jcd0602_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meltzer, L. (2007). Executive function in education: From theory to practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, K. J., Fitzgerald, G. E., Koury, K. A., Mitchem, K. J. & Hollingsead, C. (2007). KidTools: Self-management, problem-solving, organizational, and planning software for children and teachers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(1), 12–19. doi:10.1177/10534512070430010201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, S. P., Harris, C., Strawser, S., Jones, W. P. & Mercer, C. (1998). Teaching multiplication to second graders in inclusive settings. Focus of Learning Problems in Mathematics, 20, 50–70.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, S. P., Mercer, C. D. & Dillon, A. (1992). Acquiring and retaining math skills. Intervention, 28, 105–110.
   Google Scholar
• Montague, M. (2003). Solve it!: A practical approach to teaching mathematical problem solving skills. Reston, VA: Exceptional Innovations.
   Google Scholar
• Montague, M. (2007). Self-regulation and mathematics instruction. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 75–83. doi:10.1111/j.1540–5826.2007.00232.x
   Google Scholar
• Morin, J. E. & Franks, D. J. (2010). Why do some children have difficulty learning mathematics? Looking at language for answers. Preventing School Failure, 54, 111–118. doi:10.1080/10459880903217861
   Google Scholar
• National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2011). What is meant by the term curriculum? Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlcurriculum
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Literacy. (2007). What content-area teachers should know about adolescent literacy. Jessup, MD: Author.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00–4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Obukowicz, M. (2009). Chapter 8—Assistive technology for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.wati.org/content/supports/free/pdf/Ch8-Mathematics.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (2010). Dual coding theory and the mental lexicon. The Mental Lexicon, 5, 205–230. doi:10.1075/ml.5.2.04pai
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, D. C. K., Bardsley, M. E., Bach, T. & Gibb-Brown, K. (2009). “But I teach math!” The journey of middle school mathematics teachers and literacy coaches learning to integrate literacy strategies into the math instruction. Education, 129, 467–472.
   Google Scholar
• Pugalee, D. K. (2004). A comparison of verbal and written descriptions of students’ word problem solving processes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55, 27–47. doi:10.1023/B:EDUC.0000017666.11367.c7
   Google Scholar
• Reimer, K. & Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5–25.
   Google Scholar
• Renne, C. G. (2004). Is a rectangle a square? Developing mathematical vocabulary and conceptual understanding. Teaching Children Mathematics, 10, 258–263.
   Google Scholar
• Richards, R. (2012). Screencasting: Exploring a middle school math teacher's beliefs and practices through the use of multimedia technology. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(1), 55–67.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, D. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age. Baltimore, MD: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
   Google Scholar
• Schell, V. J. (1982). Learning partners: Reading and mathematics. The Reading Teacher, 35, 544–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schell, V. J. & Maxwell, S. A. (1998). A twist of the tetrahedron: The Geometry Enhancement Models Institute Venture. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 20, 88–102.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitz, B. & Perels, F. (2011). Self-monitoring of self-regulation during math homework behaviour using standardized diaries. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 255–273. doi:10.1007/s11409-011-9076-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schunk, D. H. (1983). Ability versus effort attribution feedback: Differential effects on self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 848–856. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.75.6.848
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schunk, D. H. & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading services. Journal of Special Education, 27, 257–276. doi:10.1177/002246699302700301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenhoff, D. M. & Lignugaris/Kraft, B. (2007). A review of the effects of peer tutoring on students with mild disabilities in secondary settings. Exceptional Children, 74(1), 8–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Intelligence as developing expertise. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 359–375. doi:10.1006/ceps.1998.0998
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strangman, N., Hall, T. E. & Meyer, A. (2004). Background knowledge instruction and the implications for UDL implementation. Retrieved from http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/background_knowledge_udl#.VSwBjFwbK68
   Google Scholar
• Strickland, T. K. & Maccini, P. (2010). Strategies for teaching algebra to students with learning disabilities: Making research to practice connections. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 38–45. doi:10.1177/1053451210369519
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strickland, T. K. & Maccini, P. (2013). The effects of the concrete–representational–abstract integration strategy on the ability of students with learning disabilities to multiply linear expressions within area problems. Remedial & Special Education, 34, 142–153. doi:10.1177/0741932512441712
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swanson, H. L., Jerman, O. & Xinhua, Z. (2009). Math disabilities and reading disabilities: Can they be separated? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27, 175–196. doi:10.1177/0734282908330578
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swanson, H. L., Jerman, O. & Zheng, X. (2008). Growth in working memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 343–379.doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, D. R. & Rubinstein, R. N. (2000). Learning mathematics vocabulary: Potential pitfalls and instructional strategies. Mathematics Teacher, 93, 568–573.
   Google Scholar
• Urquhart, V. (2009). Using writing in mathematics to deepen student learning. Denver, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, & Policy Development. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Wheeler, L. J. & McNutt, G. (1983). The effect of syntax on low-achieving students abilities to solve mathematical word problems. Journal of Special Education, 17, 309–315. doi:10.1177/002246698301700307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witzel, B., Smith, S. W. & Brownell, M. T. (2001). How can I help students with learning disabilities in algebra? Intervention in School and Clinic, 31, 101–104. doi:10.1177/105345120103700205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zabala, J. & Carl, D. (2010). What educators and families need to know about accessible instructional materials: Part one: Introduction and legal context. Retrieved from http://aim.cast.org/sites/aim.cast.org/files/Part1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Zollman, A. (2009). Mathematical graphic organizers. Teaching Children Mathematics, 16, 222–229.
   Google Scholar
• Zrebiec Uberti, H., Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (2004). Check it off: Individualizing a math algorithm for students with disabilities via self-monitoring checklists. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39, 269–275. doi:10.1177/10534512040390050301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar