Weighing the Benefits of Anchored Math Instruction for Students with Disabilities in General Education Classes

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of enhanced anchor instruction and traditional problem instruction in improving the problem-solving performance of 42 seventh-grade students with and without disabilities in general education classrooms. Qualitative research strategies embedded in a quasi-experimental, nonequivalent control-group design permitted investigators to describe and compare the problem-solving performances of individual students with disabilities in general education settings. Previous research has suggested that students with disabilities can solve math problems that are meaningful and motivating in remedial settings; however, few studies have examined whether those improvements can be achieved in general education classrooms. Results of this study indicated that the students without disabilities profited from contextualized instruction, but benefits for the students with disabilities were equivocal. Explanations for these findings are offered, and implications for instruction are described.

Teaching Mathematical Problem Solving to Middle School Students in Math, Technology Education, and Special Education Classrooms

“…For a variety of philosophical, legal, social, budgetary, and educational reasons, special educators are advocating for students with disabilities to be educated alongside their peers without disabilities in general education classrooms. Although some authors have found that the performance of students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms equals or surpasses their performance in pullout settings (e.g., Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002), the results of this study support other authors who warn that even in general education classes with small groups of students, some students with disabilities do not get the individualized attention they need to understand the academic content (Baxter, Woodward, Voorhies, & Wong, 2002, Bottge et al, 2002Kauffman, 1999).…”

“…The content validity of the tests was supported by their use in previous studies (e.g., Bottge, 1999;Bottge & Hasselbring, 1993;Bottge et al, 2002) and by previous research showing that the test items reliably estimated mathematics achievement (Cohen, Bottge, & Wells, 2001). We calculated the interrater reliability of each measure on 20% of the test protocols from a randomly selected sample of pretests and posttests by dividing the number of agreements by the total number of agreements and disagreements and multiplying by 100 (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1977).…”

“…In a recent study conducted in inclusive classrooms, the same positive results were found for students without disabilities (Bottge, Heinrichs, Mehta, & Hung, 2002). However, the findings were equivocal for students with disabilities.…”

“…Based on work from previous studies (Bottge et al, 2002), we developed a 36-point assessment to measure students' ability to solve the problem presented in the video Fraction of the Cost. The test was finalized only after undergoing five revisions based on the recommendations of two raters who scored protocols of students not involved in the study.…”

Cognitive Factors' Influence on Fraction Development in Students of Varying Ability Levels

“…Studies have found cue cards (Joseph & Hunter, 2001), mnemonic devices (Test & Ellis, 2005), and schema based instruction (Xin, Jitendra, & Deatline-Buchman, 2005) to be effective interventions for students with LD. Several other studies (Bottge, 1999;Bottge & Hasselbring, 1993;Bottge, Heinrichs, Mehta, & Hung, 2002;Bottge et al, 2010) have focused on using contextualized or anchored instruction to improve students' problem solving skills. Results of this line of research seem to show the most promise when the contextualized instruction is paired with extra instruction (e.g., Mastery Fractions videodisc program).…”