Connecting Evidence-Based Practice With Implementation Opportunities in Special Education Mathematics Preparation

Abstract

Over the past two decades, changes in legislation and mathematics standards, along with the increased placement of students with disabilities in general education settings, have resulted in higher expectations for what students with disabilities will be able to know and do related to mathematics. To adequately prepare for the demands of teaching mathematics to students with disabilities, it is incumbent upon special education programs to identify ways to increase the mathematical knowledge and skills of preservice special educators. Effective preparation in mathematics related to special education requires (a) awareness of legislative requirements and guiding standards, (b) understanding the etiology of mathematics difficulty, (c) familiarity with mathematics content, (d) understanding pedagogy related to special education and mathematics education, (e) knowledge of assessment to gauge student progress, (f) familiarity with evidence-based practices, and (g) authentic experiences in the field.

The Concrete–Representational–Abstract Approach for Students With Learning Disabilities: An Evidence-Based Practice Synthesis

“…The CRA instructional framework is one with multiple decades of research and conceptualization (Underhill, 1977; Underhill, Uprichard, & Heddens, 1980). The CRA instructional framework is a graduated instructional sequence that supports students in mathematics (Agrawal & Morin, 2016; Powell, 2015). The CRA instructional framework, to the distinction of other approaches, maintains a focus on conceptual understanding, teacher involvement, a fading of supports, and student mastery of mathematical procedures across multiple lessons (Flores, 2010).…”

“…The CRA instructional framework uses explicit instruction, which is recommended mathematics pedagogical approach for students with disabilities (S. K. Baker, Gersten, & Lee, 2002; Gersten et al, 2009; Powell, 2015). Explicit instruction involves a sequence that moves from the teacher modeling the mathematical concept, to teachers guiding (i.e., cuing or prompting) students through the various steps of a mathematics problem to finally transitioning students to solve problems independently (The National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008).…”

Inclusion in mathematics education: an ideology, a way of teaching, or both?

“…However, 21 of the 45 studies did not discuss inclusion per se but took its meaning for granted. These studies used wording like 'inclusive classrooms' (e.g., Moorehead & Grillo, 2014), 'inclusive settings' (e.g., Powell, 2015), 'inclusive schools' (e.g., Eisenhart et al, 2015) and 'inclusive teaching' (e.g., Watson & De Geest, 2012), without defining or discussing their meaning.…”

Implementing KeyMath approach for assessment, learning, and teaching for an inclusive middle school classroom in British Columbia

“…It is when students are taught, and become proficient in, both procedural and conceptual knowledge that real growth and understanding occurs. Powell (2015) identified some current factors of effective mathematics instruction such as general awareness of mathematical concepts and the relevant pedagogy. The common misconceptions related to math concepts are also important factors so that these misconceptions can be kept from taking root in the habits and understanding of math learners.…”

“…Without these basics at a high enough level of competency, if not mastery, math learners cannot fully participate or conceptualize the real-world problems that are increasingly the focus of mathematics classrooms (Tezer & Kanbul, 2009). Powell (2015) also noted that a key factor of mathematics instruction is assessing and responding to assessment and that current technology can greatly assist in this particular endeavor. Increasing the amount of self-correcting practice and immediate feedback that occurs with computer instruction can therefore be a valuable asset to teaching mathematics.…”