Students with disabilities are often framed as "the problem" and have limited opportunities to engage in standards based mathematics, leading to persistent underachievement. In this paper, we investigate a research divide between mathematics educational research for students with and without disabilities, a divide with significant differences in the theoretical orientations and research methodologies used to understand learners. Based on an analysis of 149 mathematics educational research articles published between 2013 and 2015, we found significant differences between articles focused on learners with and without disabilities. For those with disabilities, mathematical problem solving was understood primarily from behavioral and information processing theoretical perspectives, while for those without disabilities, problem solving was understood primarily through constructivist and sociocultural perspectives. While 86% of research on problem-solving including students with disabilities was quantitative, only 35% of research on students without disabilities was quantitative. Fifty percent of problem-solving research on students without disabilities was qualitative, compared to only 6% of research on students with disabilities. Problem solving, then, is studied in very different ways for learners with and without disabilities. Students without disabilities are studied through close analysis of learning, often individual. Students with disabilities are most often studied quantitatively, in groups, with little analysis of individual thinking. By offering only a limited range of methods and theoretical orientations, this research divide reifies deficit constructions of students with disabilities.

Disabled students have historically been dehumanized in education, generally, and in research and practice related to school mathematics (K–12), particularly. Typically, they are only offered access to low-rigor school mathematics emphasizing rote procedures and narrow skills, often segregated physically and socially from their nondisabled peers. Educators are crucial to the humanization of disabled students via anti-ableist and antiracist work toward systemic transformation. The purpose of this review is to take stock of the current knowledge base of educator and disability research concerning school mathematics, recommending directions for humanizing future research and practice. Through a humanizing mathematics education lens, we analyze 61 articles involving educators, disabilities, and school mathematics published during the decade between 2007 and 2016. Results of our analysis point to not only the continued perpetuation of dehumanizing approaches and positioning but also substantial shifts toward humanization in mathematics education for disabled students. Over half of the studies reflected humanizing shifts. Yet, overwhelmingly, studies continue to avoid meaningful intersectional considerations of race and disability.

No abstract

No abstract

Recently emerging intervention studies for toddlers with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) were reviewed through a systematic assessment of intervention outcomes, research rigor, and intervention features. The review includes published peer-reviewed experimental studies of toddlers with high risk for or diagnosis of ASD in which the majority of interventions occurred before age 36 months. Of 20 identified research studies, 6 were group comparison studies, all of which showed small to large magnitudes of effect when a uniform metric was applied. Fourteen were single-case design (SCD) studies, all of which reported effects on a variety of outcomes. When grouped by area of intervention focus (communication, general development, family well-being, imitation, joint attention, and play), commonly identified needs within focus areas were for replication, common measures, and authentic practices. A majority of studies in most focus areas showed strong to acceptable levels of research rigor, though this is an area of ongoing need.