See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46664255

Constructivist mathematics education for students with mild

mental retardation

Article  in  European Journal of Special Needs Education · February 2005

DOI: 10.1080/0885625042000319115 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS

39READS

1,271

2 authors:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Impact of teacher competencies and child factors (self concept, self efficacy and math anxiety) on childrens' math development and

the impact of teacher-pupil dynamic math interviews. View project

Math & Emotion View project

Evelyn Kroesbergen

Radboud University

139 PUBLICATIONS   3,790 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

J.E.H. Van Luit

Utrecht University

206 PUBLICATIONS   4,313 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by J.E.H. Van Luit on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

European Journal of Special Needs Education p RoutledqeVnl ?.n. Nn. 1. Fp.hninr\! 200'^. tit,. 107-116 | \ T.yio,s,F™ci,c,oLVol. 20, No. 1, February 2005, pp. 107-116

SHORT REPORT

Constructivist mathematics educationfor students with mild mentalretardationEvelyn H. Kroesbergen and Johannes E. H. Van LuitUtrecht University, The Netherlands

This study examined the effects of a constructivist mathematics intervention for students with mildmental retardation, as compared to direct instruction, which is often recommended for these chil-dren. A total of 69 students from elementary schools for special education participated in the study,which focused on multiplication learning. They received one of two kinds of mathematics interven-tion, guided or directed instruction. Multiplication automaticity and ability tests were administeredbefore and after the four-month training period. The results show that students in both conditionsimproved significantly during the training period. However, students who received directed instruc-tion showed greater improvement than students who had received guided instruction. These resultsshow that students with MMR can profit from constructivist instruction, although direct instructionseems more effective.

Keywords: Constructivism; Direct instruction; Mathematics education; Mild mentalretardation; Multiplication

Children with mild mental retardation (MMR) often have mathematics learning diffi-culties and need special attention to acquire basic maths skills (Geary, 1994).Researchers have documented specific mathematical deficiencies.,In the domain ofcomputation, students may exhibit deficits in fact retrieval, problem conceptualiza-tion and use of effective calculation strategies (Rivera, 1997). They require morepractice to achieve automaticity (Goldman & Pellegrino, 1987). In addition, studentswith MMR usually have difficulties with the use of effective cognitive and meta-cognitive problem-solving strategies, various memory and retrieval processes, and

* Corresponding author. Department of General and Special Education, Utrecht University, POBox 80140, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands. Email: E.Kroesbergen@FSS.UU.NL

ISSN 0885-6257 (printyiSSN 1469-591X (online)/05/01/0t07-10© 2005 Taylor & Francis Group LtdDOI: 10.1080/0885625042000319115

108 E. H. Kroesbergen andJ. E. H. Van Luit

generalization or transfer (Geary et al., 1991). When students cannot automaticallyretrieve basic facts, they have to rely on strategies (Kerkman & Siegler, 1997).Through repeated practice, they may become faster at the execution of a certain strat-egy and begin to associate problems with their solutions (Lin et al., 1994). However,when the students' strategy use is inadequate, as in children with MMR, they willhave even more difficulty with reaching automatic mastery of basic facts.

Instruction should obviously take the particular difficulties of children with MMRinto account. Van Luit and Naglieri (1999) suggest that teaching step-by-step fromconcrete to abstract, working with materials to mental representations and providingtask-relevant examples can certainly help. These students need directed and detailedinstruction, explicit task analysis, and explicit instruction for automatization andgeneralization. This can be realized with direct instruction. The main characteristicof direct instruction is, in fact, that it is very directed. In practice, direct instruction isteacher-led, because the teacher provides systematic explicit instruction (Jones et al.,1997). New steps in the learning process are taught one at a time, based on thestudents' progress. The lessons are generally built up following the same pattern (e.g.Archer & Isaacson, 1989). In the opening phase, the students' attention is gained,previous lessons are reviewed and the goals ofthe lesson are stated. In the main partof the lesson, the teacher demonstrates how a particular task can be solved and thenthe students can work on the task, when necessary with the help ofthe teacher. Whenthe students appear to have sufficient understanding of the task, they are given moreof the same problems to practise independently. The teacher monitors the studentsduring such practice and provides feedback on completed tasks. Interventions inwhich students receive direct instruction have been frequently found to be very effec-tive (e.g. Van Luit, 1994; Harris et al., 1995; Wilson et al, 1996; Jitendra & Hoff,1996; Timmermans & Van Lieshout, 2003).

These recommendations, however, appear to be in clear opposition to internationaldevelopments in maths education that ask for a more constructivist-based instruction,in which the students' own productions and constructions play a central role (e.g.NCTM, 1989, 2000). Students must actively participate in the learning process tobecome active learners. Instead ofthe teacher passing on mathematics knowledge insmall and basically meaningless parts, students have to play an important role in theconstruction of their own knowledge base (Cobb, 1994; Gravemeijer, 1997). Thechallenge of teaching from such a constructivist perspective is to create experiencesthat engage students and encourage them to discover new knowledge, both in regularand special education settings (Woodward & Montague, 2002). By working togetherand discussing possible solutions to a problem with one another, students developproblem-solving strategies, which they must explain and justify to one another. Suchlearning can be promoted by guided instruction, and this forms the focus of this study.

Research suggests that instruction based on constructivist principles leads to betterresults than more direct, traditional mathematics education (Cobb et al., 1991;Gravemeijer et al., 1993; Klein, 1998). And many researchers have observed thatlearning in such a manner is more motivating, exciting, and challenging (Ginsburg-Block & Fantuzzo, 1998). Students who leam to apply active learning strategies are

Maths instruction for students with MMR 109

also expected to acquire more useful and transferable knowledge (Gabrys et al.,1993). Given the need to provide a general education curriculum to students withspecial needs, special educators have to investigate the possibilities to provide instruc-tion that is consistent with constructivist theories (Mercer et al., 1994; Woodward &Montague, 2002). Furthermore, the increase in the number of inclusion settingsresults in more students with special needs receiving the same instruction as theirnormally achieving peers. However, little empirical evidence to date is available onthe effects of this kind of maths instruction for students in special education in generaland students with MMR in particular.

The question that arises is whether teachers can ask students with MMR to activelycontribute to lessons by inventing new strategies. Asking for such a contribution actu-ally appears to deny the characteristic weaknesses of these children, namely deficits inknowledge generalization and connecting new information to old. Nevertheless, somerecent studies have shown that constructivist-based instruction can be effective forlow performers and students with specific learning disabilities (Woodward & Baxter,1997; Kroesbergen & Van Luit, 2002). However, students with MMR differ in theirinstructional needs from students with LD (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1997). Ourresearch question is therefore whether guided instruction, which is based onconstructivist theory, is also appropriate for teaching students with MMR or ifdirected instruction is always needed for these children, instead of, or in addition to,guided instruction.

Method

Procedure and design

In order to study the effectiveness of guided instruction, a group intervention designappeared to be most powerful (Gersten et al., 2000). The group design involved twoconditions: the experimental group who received guided instruction or GI, and thecontrol group who received directed instruction or DI. The instruction during theintervention period was restricted to multiplication. Pre- and post-tests wereconducted to measure achievement in multiplication ability, automaticity and strategyuse. The participating students received 30 half-hour multiplication lessons across aperiod of four months. Research assistants trained and coached by the experimenterconducted the intervention. The lessons were conducted twice weekly in small groupsof four to five students each, at the time that the children would normally receivemaths instruction. On the other three days ofthe week, the children followed the regu-lar maths curriculum with the exception of the multiplication instruction.

Participants

A total of 69 students from elementary schools for special education participatedin the experiment, 48 boys and 21 girls. Dutch criteria for placement of children inspecial schools include evidence of (a) a disorder in one or more of the basic

110 E. H. Kroesbergen andJ. E. H. Van Luit

psychological processes; academic achievement significant below the student's levelof intellectual functioning; learning problems that are not due primarily to otherhandicapping conditions; and the ineffectiveness of general educational alternativesin meeting the student's educational needs, or (b) intellectual functioning (far)below average (IQ < 85); and academic functioning (far) below the level of'normal' children with the same age in elementary schools. For this study, studentswere selected from the second group, although only students with a score between1 and 2 SDs below the normative mean were included (mean IQ, 78.8; sd = 3.8).This group of children is referred to as 'mild mentally retarded'. The mean age ofthe students was 10.3 years {sd = 1.2). The students also had to meet the follow-ing criteria: they had to be able to count and add to 100 (in order to leammultiplication on the basis of repeated addition) and they had to score below the50% level on a test of multiplication facts up to ten times ten. The students wereassigned to either the directed instruction (N - 34) or the guided instructiongroup (iV = 35). There were no significant differences between both experimentalgroups on the basis of IQ (r (67) = 0.690, p = 0.492), or age (t (67) = 1.676,p = 0.098).

Materials

At pre- and post-test, two multiplication tests were administered. The automaticitytest contains 40 multiplication problems up to 10 x 10. This test was aurally admin-istered. Students were asked to solve as many problems as possible within a two-minute period. The multiplication ability test is a paper-and-pencil test containing20 multiplication problems; most of them are context problems. Fifteen items arebelow 10 X 10; five items are 'easy' problems above 10 x 10 (e.g. 8 x 15 or 3 x 30).The answers are scored as right or wrong. Furthermore, the students were asked towrite down the strategies they used to solve the problems. For every student, thenumber of different strategies used was counted. The following strategies weredistinguished: (1) automatic; (2) reversal (5 x 6 = 6 x 5); (3) splitting at five or tenwith addition ( 8 x 7 = 5 x 7 + 3 x 7 ; 1 3 x 5 = 1 0 x 5 + 3 x 5 ) ; (4) splitting at five orten with subtraction (9 x 7 = 10 x 7 - 1 x 7); (5) doubling ( 6 x 4 = 3 x 4 + 3 x 4 ) ;(6) neighbour (8 x 9 = 9 x 9 - 1 x 9); (7) division; (8) reciting aloud or writing downthe multiplication table; (9) repeated addition; and (10) use of concrete materials ordrawing. Students could thus score between 1 and 10 on strategy diversity.

Furthermore, the adequacy of the strategies was calculated. To measure theadequacy of strategy selection, the strategies were assigned to one ofthe following fivecategories, based on the steps needed to solve the problem:

1. Repeated addition or counting.2. Marginally adequate solution requiring more than two steps (e.g. 4 x 8 = 8 x 4 ; 2

X 4 = 8; 8 + 8 = 16; 16 + 16 = 32).3. Semi-adequate solution requiring two steps (e.g. reversal and splitting, splitting

and adding: 4 x 6 = 6 x 4 = 5 x 4 + 4).

Maths instruction for students with MMR 111

4. Adequate solution requiring one step (e.g. reversing or splitting).5. Retrieval.

A mean efficacy score (range 1-5) was then calculated for each student.

Instructional programme

In this study, two interventions are compared: guided versus directed instruction. Forthe two experimental interventions, adjustments were made to the AIASTER trainingprogram (Van Luit et al., 1993) (see also Van Luit & Naglieri, 1999; Kroesbergen etal., 2004), which is a remedial programme for multiplication and division. In thisstudy, only the multiplication part was used. The instruction was changed in order tocreate the two different conditions, and the working sheets were adjusted to the twoinstructional conditions. The experimental programmes consisted of a series of 25multiplication lessons (8 lessons on basic procedures; 11 lessons on multiplicationtables; and 6 lessons on 'easy' problems above 10 x 10). In each lesson, a new kindof task is introduced. Each of the series teaches new steps for the problem-solvingrelated to specific tasks. The emphasis in the lessons was on: (1) automated masteryofthe multiplication facts, and (2) the use of back-up strategies.

Directed instruction. The lessons in the DI condition always start with a repetition ofwhat was done in the preceding lesson. When the students show sufficient knowledgeofthe preceding lesson, the teacher proceeds to the content ofthe actual lesson. Theteacher then introduces a new task and explains how to solve such a task. The empha-sis is on the explanation of the strategy to be used. When necessary, concrete materi-als are used to explain the task to the students. After the presentation of one or twoexamples, several tasks are next practised and discussed within the group. The groupinstruction is followed by an individual practice phase, in which the students canfamiliarize themselves with the kind of tasks involved and establish connections to themental solution ofthe problems.

That explicit teaching of new strategies is intended to help students expand theirstrategy repertoires. When a new strategy is taught, it is always the teacher who tellsthe children how and when to apply the strategy. The children are then instructed tofollow the example of the teacher. In the DI condition, there is little room for inputfrom the children themselves (i.e. the children must follow the procedures theteacher teaches them). When a child applies a strategy that has not been taught, theteacher may state that the particular strategy is certainly a possible strategy for solv-ing the problem in question but that they are being taught a different strategy andthen ask the child to apply the strategy being taught. Students in the directedinstruction condition leam to work with a strategy decision sheet to help themchoose the most appropriate strategy. The strategies taught in this condition are:reversal, splitting at five or ten, neighbour problem, doubling, saying the table andrepeated addition.

112 E. H. Kroesbergen andJ. E. H. Van Luit

Guided instruction. The lessons in the GI instruction condition also start with areview ofthe previous lesson. What the students do and say in this phase is then takenas the starting-point for the actual lesson. When it appears that the students do notfully understand the tasks discussed in the previous lesson, the teacher will focusagain on these tasks. Otherwise, the next topic is introduced (e.g. 'Today we are goingto practise with the table of 3'). During guided instruction, the discussion is alwayscentred on the contributions of the children themselves, which means that topics andstrategies other than those that the teacher has in mind may sometimes be addressed.Just as in the DI condition, the GI condition contains an introductory phase, a grouppractice phase and an individual practice phase. However, in the GI condition greaterattention is devoted to the discussion of possible solution procedures and strategiesthan in the DI condition.

In the guided instruction condition much more attention is given to the individualcontributions of the students. The teacher presents a problem and the childrenactively search for possible solutions. The teacher supports the learning process byasking questions and promoting discussion between students. The teacher canencourage the discovery of new strategies by offering additional and/or more difficultproblems, but never demonstrates a particular strategy. As a consequence, when thechildren do not discover a particular strategy, the strategy will not be discussed withinthe group. The teacher does, however, structure the discussions during the lessons byhelping students classify various strategies and posing questions about the usefulnessof particular strategies, for example.

Results

In this study, the effects of guided instruction (GI) were compared with the effects ofdirected instruction (DI) to teach MMR students multiplication. First, the effects ofboth instructional conditions on the students' automatic knowledge of the basicmultiplication facts were investigated. In Table 1 the mean pre- and post-test scores

Table 1.

Condition

DIGI

Means, standard deviations and effect

Pre-test

15.2 (7.5)16.5 (5.0)

Post-test

22.9 (6.7)22.9 (6.8)

sizes for the automaticity

Effect size'

1.08 81.08 7

test (max

t

.198

.246

==40)

P

<0.001<0.001

Table 2.

Condition

DIGI

Means, standard

Pre-test

7.5 (4.7)8.0 (3.9)

deviations and effect

Post-test

13.2 (5.3)11.3 (4.9)

sizes for multiplication

Effect size

1.140.75

ability test

t

7.4154.328

(max - 20)

P

<0.001<0.001

Maths instruction for students with MMR 113

Table 3. Means, standard deviations and effect sizes for amount of strategies used (max =10)

Condition

DIGI

Table

Condition

DIGI

Pre-test

3.1 (1.1)3.1 (1.6)

4. Means, standard

Pre-test

2.2 (0.9)2.6(1.0)

Post-test

3.7 (1.3)3.7(1.5)

deviations and

Post-test

3.0(1.0)2.8 (1.0)

Effect size

0.500.39

effect sizes for strategy

Effect size

0.840.20

t

2.2872.166

adequacy'

t

4.5600.948

P

0.0290.037

P

<0.0010.350

' Ranging from 1 (marginally adequate) to 5 (very adequate).

on the automaticity test are presented. No difference was found at pre-test. Paired-samples i-tests show significant improvement for both the guided and the directedinstruction groups. However, no differences in improvement were found between thetwo conditions, t(67) = 0.844, p = 0.402. Students who had received guided instruc-tion improved as much as the students who had received directed instruction.

Next, the effects on the students' multiplication ability were studied. The resultsare shown in Table 2. Although both groups did not differ at pre-test, and both didimprove significantly, the directed instruction group made more improvement thanthe guided instruction group, t(67) = 2.102, p = 0.039.

Finally, the use of strategies by students was studied. Table 3 shows the students'strategy diversity, and Table 4 the students' mean efficacy scores. It was found thatstudents in both the guided and the directed instruction condition used more strate-gies at post-test than at pre-test. However, no differences between the conditionswere found (p>0.5). Furthermore, the students in the DI condition improved signif-icantly in strategy adequacy, while this improvement was not found for the GI condi-tion. The DI group showed significantly more improvement in strategy adequacythan the GI group, t(67) = 2.345, p = 0.022.

To summarize, the two groups did not differ in automaticity or strategy diversity;however, the DI group improved more in multiplication ability and strategy adequacyas compared with the GI group.

Discussion and conclusion

In the present study, the effectiveness of instruction based on students' own contri-butions (guided instruction) was investigated and compared with the effectiveness ofexplicit instruction (directed instruction) for teaching multiplication to students withMMR. The two experimental groups were found to differ significantly from eachother on two of the four measures, multiplication ability and strategy adequacy, withthe DI group showing greater improvement than the GI group. These findings

114 E. H. Kroesbergen andj. E. H. Van Luit

support the results of other research that students in special education profit mostfrom directed instruction (e.g. Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998; Xin & Jitendra, 1999;Kroesbergen & Van Luit, 2003; Timmermans & Van Lieshout, 2003). The studentsin the DI group have adequately learned to apply the strategies modelled by theteacher. Obviously, this is more effective for students with MMR than developingtheir own strategies, as promoted in general education teaching methods. The strat-egy adequacy of students in the GI condition did not improve during the trainingperiod; furthennore, they made more mistakes in the multiplication test than theirpeers in the DI condition.

Nevertheless, the groups did not differ on the other two measures, automaticity andstrategy diversity. It seems that automatic mastery of the multiplication facts can bereached with both instructional methods and is less dependent on the student's strat-egy use than is often thought (e.g. Lin et al., 1994). Although students in the DIcondition could apply more adequate strategies, this did not result in a more auto-matic knowledge base of multiplication facts. Furthermore, no differences were foundbetween the groups in the mean amount of different strategies used. Both groups usedon average only 0.6 strategies more at post-test than at pre-test. It is difficult for thesestudents to acquire new knowledge in a short period. However, students in bothconditions did improve. Apparently, the students in the DI condition have learned aspecific set of strategies, which they then could apply adequately. However, thestudents in the GI condition, who were allowed to use as many different strategies asthey wanted to, did not use more different strategies. It seems that most of the MMRstudents in both conditions learned only a few (three to four) strategies and that thisset was appropriate to make the test. This is consistent with the theory that MMRstudents have difficulties with handling a large repertoire of strategies and that theybenefit most from instruction that involves the explicit teaching of a relatively smallbut adequate repertoire of strategies Qones et al., 1997; Van Luit & Naglieri, 1999).

Although students in the GI group showed less improvement than their DI peers,it is noticeable that they nevertheless did improve significantly during the trainingperiod, with effect sizes of d = 0.75 and d = 1.08 on the multiplication tests. Appar-ently, students with MMR are also able to build their own mathematical knowledgeand, in contrast to what, for example, Camine (1997) and Jones et al. (1997) haveargued, do not necessarily need explicit instruction. Moreover, the fact that they didnot improve as much as the students in the DI group, may even be explained by thefact that they were not used to such a guided instruction, because their teachersgenerally taught them in a more or less directive way. And it is difficult, especially forstudents with MMR, to make the switch from learning via directed instruction tolearning via guided instruction (Woodward & Montague, 2002). In this light, theseresults are promising for giving special students constructivist-based instruction.However, further research is needed before stronger conclusions could be drawn. Astarting-point is given by efforts to distinguish implicit from explicit constructivism,and attempts to describe a more structured variant of constructivism that providesskill development and guided practice (Woodward & Montague, 2002). Futureresearch should be focused on making adaptations to constructivist instruction to

Maths instruction for students with MMR 115

make it more suitable for students with MMR. This would make instruction for thesestudents less different from the general education instruction, which is especiallyadvisable with regard to inclusive settings.

References

Archer, A. & Isaacson, S. (1989) Design and delivery of academic instruction (Reston, VA, Councilfor Exceptional Children).

Camine, D. (1997) Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities.Journal of Leaming Disabilities, 30, 130—141.

Cobb, P. (1994) Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathemati-cal development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13-20.

Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nichills, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B. & Perlwitz, M. (1991)Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research inMathematics Education, 22, 3-29.

Gabrys, G., Weiner, A. & Lesgold, A. (1993) Learning by problem solving in a coached apprenticesystem, in: M. Rabinowitz (Ed.) Cognitive science foundations of instruction (Hillsdale, NJ,Erlbaum), 119-147.

Geary, D. C. (1994) Children's mathematical development. Research and practical applications (Wash-ington, DC, American Psychological Association).

Geary, D. C , Brown, S. C. & Samaranayake, V. A. (1991) Cognitive addition: a short longitudinalstudy of strategy choice and speed-of-processing differences in normal and mathematicallydisabled children. Developmental Psychology, 27,181-191.

Gersten, R., Baker, S. & Lloyd, J. W. (2000) Designing high-quality research in special education:group experimental dt%i^. Journal of Special Education, 34, 2-18.

Ginsburg-Block, M. D. & Fantuzzo, J. W. (1998) An evaluation of the relative effectiveness ofNCTM Standards-based interventions for low-achieving urban elementary students. Journalof Educational Psychology, 90, 560-569.

Goldman, S. R. & Pellegrino, J. W. (1987) Information processing and educational microcom-puter technology: where do we go from her€^ Journal of Leaming Disabilities, 20, 144-154.

Gravemeijer, K. (1997) Instructional design for reform in mathematics education, in: M. Beishui-zen, K. P. E. Gravemeijer & E. C. D. M. Van Lieshout (Eds) The role of contexts and models inthe development of mathematical strategies and procedures (Utrecht, CD-P Press), 13-34.

Gravemeijer, K. P. E., Van de Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Van Donselaar, G., Ruesink, N.,Streefland, L., Vermeulen, W. M. M. J., Te Woerd, E. & Van der Ploeg, D. A. (1993) Meth-oden in het reken-wiskundeonderwijs: een rijke context voor vergelijkend onderzoek [Methods inmathematics education: a rich context for comparative research] (Utrecht, CD-P Press).

Harris, C. A., Miller, S. P. & Mercer, C. D. (1995) Teaching initial multiplication skills tostudents with disabilities in general education classrooms, Leaming Disabilities Research &Practice, 10, 180-195.

Jitendra, A. K. & Hoff, K. (1996) The effects of schema-based instruction on the mathematicalword-problem-solving performance of students with leaming disabilities. Journal of LeamingDisabilities, 29, 422-431.

Jones, E. D., Wilson, R. & Bhojwani, S. (1997) Mathematics instruction for secondary studentswith leaming disahilities, Journal of Leaming Disabilities, 30, 151-163.

Kerkman, D. D. & Siegler, R. S. (1997) Measuring individual differences in children's additionstrategy choices, Leaming and Individual Differences, 9, 1-18.

Klein, A. S. (1998) Elexibilization of mental arithmetic strategies on a different knowledge base: theempty number line in a realistic versus gradual program design (Utrecht, CD-P Press).

Kroesbergen, E. H. & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2002) Teaching multiplication to low math performers:guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science, 30, 361-378.

116 E. H. Kroesbergen andJ. E. H. Van Luit

Kroesbergen, E. H. & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2003) Mathematics interventions for children withspecial educational needs: a meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97-114.

Kroesbergen, E. H., Van Luit, J. E. H. & Maas, C. M. (2004) Effectiveness of explicit andconstructivist mathematics instruction for low-achieving students in The Netherlands,Elementary School Joumal, 104, 233-251.

Lin, A., Podell, D. M. & Tournaki-Rein, N. (1994) CAI and the development of automaticity inmathematics skills in students with and without mild mental handicaps. Computers in theSchools, 11,43-58.

Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (1997) How effective is inquiry leaming for students withmild d\sahi\ities? Joumal of Special Education, 31, 199-211.

Mercer, C. D., Jordan, L. & Miller, S. P. (1994) Implications of constructivism for teaching mathto students with moderate to mild disahilnies, Joumal of Special Education, 28, 290-306.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989) Curriculum and evaluation standards for schoolmathematics (Reston, VA, NCTM).

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000) Principles and NCTM standards for schoolmathematics (Reston, VA, NCTM).

Rivera, D. P. (1997) Mathematics education and students with leaming disabilities: introductionto the special series, Joumal of Leaming Disabilities, 30, 2-19.

Swanson, H. L. & Hoskyn, M. (1998) Experimental intervention research on students with leam-ing disabilities: a meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68,277-321.

Timmermans, R. F. & Van Lieshout, E. C. D. M. (2003) Influence of instruction in mathematicsfor low performing students on strategy use, European Joumal of Special Needs Education, 18,5-16.

Van Luit, J. E. H. (1994) The effectiveness of structural and realistic arithmetic curricula inchildren with special needs, European Joumal of Special Needs Education, 9, 16-26.

Van Luit, J. E. H., Kaskens, J. & Van der Krol, R. (1993) Spedaal rekenhulpprogramma vermenig-vuldigen en verdelen [Special remedial math training program for multiplication and division](Doetinchem, Graviant).

Van Luit, J. E. H. & Naglieri, J. A. (1999) Effectiveness of the MASTER strategy training programfor teaching special children multiplication and division, Joumal of Leaming Disabilities, 32,98-107.

Wilson, R., Majsterek, D. & Simmons, D. (1996) The effects of computer-assisted versus teacher-directed instruction on the multiplication performance of elementary students with learningdisahilities, Joumal of Leaming Disabilities, 29, 382-390.

Woodward, J. & Baxter, J. (1997) The effects of an innovative approach to mathematics onacademically low-achieving students in inclusive settings. Exceptional Children, 63, 373-388.

Woodward, J. & Montague, M. (2002) Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for studentswith LD, Joumal of Special Education, 36, 89-101.

Xin, Y. P. & Jitendra, A. K. (1999) The effects of instruction in solving mathematical wordproblems for students with learning problems: a meta-analysis, Joumal of Special Education,32, 207-225.

View publication statsView publication stats