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

RMLE Online

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 1-17

  Bottge, Brian A ^a   Heinrichs, Mary ^a   Dee Mehta, Zara ^a   Rueda, Enrique ^a   Hung, Ya Hui ^a   Danneker, Jeanne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750388293     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19404476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19404476.2004.11658161     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Baxter, J., Woodward, J., Voorhies, J., & Wong, J., (2002). We talk about it, but do they get it? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 173-185.
2. Boaler, J., (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41-62.
3. Bottge, B. A., (1999). Effects of contextualized math instruction on problem solving of average and below-average achieving students. Journal of Special Education, 33, 81-92.
4. Bottge, B. A., (2001). Reconceptualizing math problem solving for low-achieving students. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 102-112.
5. 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, 556-566.
6. Bottge, B. A., Heinrichs, M., Chan, S., & Serlin, R., (2001). Anchoring adolescents’ understanding of math concepts in rich problem solving environments. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 299-314.
7. Bottge, B. A., Heinrichs, M., Mehta, Z., & Hung, Y., (2002). Weighing the benefits of anchored math instruction for students with disabilities in general education classes. Journal of Special Education, 35, 186-200.
8. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M., (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D., Nix & R., Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P., (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 17(1), 32-41.
10. Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College Press.
11. Cawley, J., Parmar, R., Foley, T. E., Salmon, S., & Roy, S., (2001). Arithmetic performance of students: Implications for standards and programming. Exceptional Children, 67, 311-328.
12. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper Project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Cohen, A. S., Bottge, B. A., & Wells, C. S., (2001). Using item response theory to assess effects of mathematics instruction in special populations. Exceptional Children, 68, 23-44.
14. Ellis, E. S., (1998). Watering up the curriculum for adolescents with learning disabilities—Part 2. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 91-105.
15. Gersten, R., Baker, S., & Lloyd, J. W., (2000). Designing high-quality research in special education: Group experimental design. Journal of Special Education, 34, 2-18.
16. Gray, K. C., & Herr, E. L., (1998). Workforce Education: The Basics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
17. Greeno, J. G., & the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26.
18. International Society for Technology in Education. (1999). National educational technology standards for students — Connecting curriculum and technology. Retrieved March 21, 2002, from http://www.iste.org/standards/index.html.
19. Kauffman, J. M., (1999). Commentary: Today’s special education and its messages for tomorrow. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 244-254.
20. Lave, J., Smith, S., & Butler, M., (1988). Problem solving as an everyday practice. In R. I., Charles & E. A., Silver (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 61-81). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
21. Masingila, J. O., (1993). Learning from mathematics practice in out-of-school situations. For the Learning of Mathematics, 13(2), 18-22.
22. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Shiah, S., (1991). Mathematics instruction for learning disabled students: A review of research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 89-98.
23. Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D., (1997). Educational aspects of mathematics disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 47-56.
24. Montague, M., (1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 164-177.
25. Mtetwa, D., & Garofalo, J., (1989). Beliefs about mathematics: An overlooked aspect of student difficulties. Academic Therapy, 24, 611-618.
26. Murnane, R. J., & Levy, F., (1996). Teaching the new basic skills. New York: Free Press.
27. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
29. National Middle School Association. (2002). NMSA position statement on curriculum integration. Retrieved January 19, 2003, from http://www.nmsa.org/news/positionpapers/integrativecurriculum.htm/.
30. Newmann, F. M., Secada, W. G., & Wehlage, G. G., (1995). A guide to authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards, and scoring. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
31. Norman, D. A., (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D., Gentner & A. L., Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7-14). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Panel on Educational Technology. (1997). Report to the president on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Retrieved March 21, 2002, from http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/k-12ed.html.
33. Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C., (2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68, 203-222.
34. Shepard, R. N., & Cooper, L. A., (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Smith, J. P. I., (1999). Tracking the mathematics of automobile production: Are schools failing to prepare students for work? American Educational Research Journal, 36, 835-878.
36. Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R., (1977). Applying behavior analysis procedures with children and youth. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
37. Thorndike, E. L., (1922). Psychology of arithmetic. New York: Macmillan.
38. Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S., (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review, 8, 247-261, 384-395, 553-564.
39. U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: Author.
40. Whitehead, A. M., (1929). The aims of education. New York: Macmillan.
41. Woodworth, R. S., (1921). Psychology: A Study of Mental Life. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
42. Woodward, J., & Baxter, J., (1997). The effects of an innovative approach to mathematics on academically low-achieving students in inclusive settings. Exceptional Children, 63, 373-388.