Optimizing Math Curriculum to Meet the Learning Needs of Students

References

• Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. S. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. Elementary School Journal, 103, 51-74.
   Google Scholar
• Bottge, B. A. & Hasselbring, T. S. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children, 59(6). 556-566.
   Google Scholar
• Carnine, D., Jitendra, A., & Silbert, J. (1997). A descriptive analysis of mathematics curricular materials from a pedagogical perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 18(2), 66-81.
   Google Scholar
• Cawley, J. F., & Miller, J. H. (1989). Crossectional comparison of the mathematical performance of children with learning disabilities: Are we on the right track toward comprehensive programming? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 250-254, 259.
   Google Scholar
• Cawley, J. F., Parmar, J., Foley, R., Salmon, T. E., Sharmila, S., & Sharmila, R. (2001). Arithmetic performance of students: Implications for standards and programming. Exceptional Children, 67(3), 1-18.
   Google Scholar
• Fiore, T. A., & Cook, R. A. (1994). Adopting textbooks and other instructional materials: Policies and practices that address diverse learners. Remedial and Special Education, 15(6), 333-347.
   Google Scholar
• Garner, R. (1992). Learning from school texts. Educational Psychologist, 27, 53-63.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchinson, N. L. (1993). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on algebra problem solving of adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 34-63.
   Google Scholar
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Federal Register, 34 C. F. R. Parts 300 and 303 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004) (reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990).
   Google Scholar
• Jitendra, A. K., Salmento, M. M., & Haydt L. A. (1999). A case analysis of fourth-grade subtraction instruction in basal mathematics programs: Adherence to important instructional design criteria. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(2), 69-79.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, B., Carnine, D., Gersten, R. & Grossen, B. (1986). The effectiveness of videodisc instruction in teaching fractions to learning-disabled and remedial high school students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 8(2), 5-17.
   Google Scholar
• Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• McLeod, T., & Armstrong, S. (1982). Learning disabilities in mathematics: Skill deficits and remedial approaches. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 305-311.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, S. C., & Miller, N. L. (1992). Teaching students with learning problems in math to acquire, understand, and apply basic math facts. Remedial and Special Education, 13(3), 19-25.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, D. D., & Forcht, J. P. (1995). Mathematics strategies for secondary students with learning disabilities or mathematics deficiencies: A cognitive approach. Intervention in School and Clinic, 31, 91-96.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1997). Educational aspects of mathematical disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 47-56.
   Google Scholar
• National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). National assessment of educational progress: The nation's report card. Retrieved September 30, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Parmar, R. S. (1992). Protocol analysis of strategies used by students with mild disabilities when solving arithmetic word problems, Diagnostigue, 17, 227-243.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, A. (1989). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 9-15.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In W. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376-391). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, S., Riccomini, P. J., & Witzel, B. S. (in press). The algebra readiness of high school students in South Carolina: Implications for middle school math teachers. South Carolina Middle School Association Journal.
   Google Scholar
• Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., & Saumell, L. (1994). Assisting students with difficult textbooks: Teacher perceptions and practices. Reading Research and Instruction, 34(1), 39-59.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, R. L., LaCava, P. G., & Graner, P. S. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges and implication for educators. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(2), 67-75.
   Google Scholar
• South Carolina Department of Education. (2000). South Carolina Academic Standards. Retrieved February 14, 2005 from http://ed.sc.gov/agency/offices/cso/standards/math/
   Google Scholar
• Stein, M., Silbert, J., & Carnine, D. (1997). Designing effective mathematics instruction: A direct instruction approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar