Effects of Different Mathematic Instructional Techniques for Learning Disabled Students - Research Paper Example

Effects of Different Mathematic Instructional Techniques for Learning Disabled Students Abstract The study analyzed is the article shed light on different ways to teach mathematic word problems to middle school students with learning disabilities. Since math is a critical part of everyday life, it is important that these students develop a method for problem solving that can be applied to their lives. Two approaches were used to see which was more effective for the students that had learning disabilities. These two approaches are schema-based instruction (SBI) and general strategy instruction (GSI). In this article, results indicated that SBI instructional techniques led to better performance. Effects of Different Mathematic Instructional Techniques for Learning Disabled Students According to Deatline-Buchman, Jittendra and Xin (2002), the study that they conducted and analyzed was how different types of instruction of math word problems could effect students that have learning disabilities. The test group of 22 middle school students were examined to see how two different types of math teaching techniques could impact their learning and achievement in math. These two types are schema-based instruction and general strategy instruction. These different curriculum methods would help them to see how well the students would absorb the knowledge needed in order to solve these word math problems despite the fact that they had learning disabilities. Throughout this study, many tests and measures of the students' results were taken to see if these two types of instructional methods impacted their success in learning how to solve math problems in different ways. Research Problem The problem addressed in this article discussed the issues of how two different teaching techniques could ensure better results for students with learning disabilities that were struggling to learn how to solve mathematical word problems. Teaching young students that have learning disabilities can be difficult as they must overcome hurdles that other children do not. This analysis is imperative to help find new ways to teach young students so that they are more successful in learning a technique to solve math problems so they will not be hindered by their learning disability and instead be able to take these techniques and apply them to their future adult lives. The hypothesis of this research is that one of the two techniques will help students progress in learning how to solve word math problems though it is not initially clear how the two instructional techniques differentiate until farther into the experiment. Literature Review There are multiple points in the literary analysis by that can shed light on the two different teaching techniques on how to teach problem solving in the sector of mathematics that would impact how it could help students with learning disabilities improve. One main point in this research is to increase awareness to teachers, students and parents alike that mathematical problem solving skills are crucial to students in their futures, regardless of whether or not they have learning disabilities. The point made in this article's literature is that this is absolutely crucial as emphasized by the Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics' Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM, 2000; Goldman, Hasselbring & the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1997). Secondly, another main point behind this research is that students, regardless of their learning disabilities, will need to acquire math problem solving and comprehension skills due to their necessity in the future within their jobs. It is crucial that they are able to master a higher achievement of these skills in order to be marketable within their occupational sectors ( National Education Goals Panel, 1997). The third main point is that despite their learning disabilities, all students are required to be held accountable to the same academic standards according to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the reform it brought on public schools across the nation. Typically, however, mathematics teaching methods are typically emphasized on computational methods of problem solving rather than the actual reasoning used in math problems (Cawley, Parmar, Yan & Miller, 1998). Method Research Format The methods of instructional teaching of the two different techniques of teaching mathematical problem solving skills were used and included schema-based instruction and general strategy instruction were evaluated through the use of a pre-test before the methods were incurred and a post-test taken after the methods were used. This helped to determine which of the two teaching methods were best for middle school students with learning disabilities to better grasp the concept of problem solving in math. Within this study, Deatline-Buchman, Jittendra and Xin (2002) used 22 students that had a learning disability of some nature. Eighteen were recognized by their school districts as having a learning disability. One of the participants had a severe emotional disorder and three were at risk for mathematic failure in their class. These students, which attended middle school in the northeastern part of the United States, were specifically picked out by their teachers due to their current problems and struggles in math or had a 70 percent or below performance score on the pre-test that included multiplication and division word problems (Deatline-Buchman, et. Al, 2002). The design of the experiment included taking these middle school students were in two different sectors, one taught by two doctoral students in special education and the other group taught by two experienced special education teachers. One group of students was comprised of eight students, four in each treatment group. The other group of students was made up of 14 students, seven in each treatment group. The arrangement of these two groups were assigned randomly. To maintain a control sector, each pair of instructors were switched up in the midst of the experiment midway so that the teacher itself would not be a variable in the way the experiment was conducted, but instead would focus on the curriculum that they taught. Teachers teach in different ways, however, both sets of instructors were teaching the same thing. However, it was best to change it up as a child's learning could depend some on the instructor-student relationship. Instructors used pre-written teaching scripts so that they would all be teaching the same methods and were also trained in the specifics of the study so that they would be familiar with the techniques and lesson formats. The demographics of the students varied though it was almost even in how many were male and how many students were female. The grade levels were grades sixth though eighth and they were approximately ages 12 to 14. A total of seven students were Caucasian, 12 were Hispanic and three were African-American. IQ achievement scores were also taken into account but were only available for nine of the 22 students within the test group (Deatline-Buchman, et. al, 2002). Students in both groups were given their assigned strategy instruction three or four times per week, with each training session class lasting one hour for a total of 12 sessions. The students were subjected to the two different teaching methods: schema-based instruction (SBI) and general strategy instruction (GSI). Students in one group, the SBI group, received four sessions that involved multiplicative compare and proportion problems and four sessions on solving word problems that included both GSI and SBI training. The other group, the GSI students, solved both types of problems in all 12 sessions. GSI students were not aware that the two types of word problems were different. Both groups were given the same assignments and same number of problems, were allowed to ask the teachers for help, were provided calculators both during instruction and testing (Deatline-Buchman, et. Al, 2002). All students were instructed to read the problem in order to understand it, determine the representation, plan, solve and check it. The difference between the GSI and SBI group however, was the way they were told to plan and solve the problem. The SBI group was taught to use a diagram to represent and solve the math problem while the GSI group drew semi-concrete pictures to determine the information needed to solve the problem (Deatline-Buchman, et. al, 2002). SBI versus GSI instruction. Both types of instruction start out with reading to understand and ending in looking back to check it. The differences are the instruction type that is in the middle. SBI teaches the student to identify the problem type, use a schema diagram to represent the problem, take the diagram and turn it into a math sentence, solve the problem and then check it. GSI teaches that after reading the problem, you then draw a picture to represent it, then solve it followed by checking it (Deatline-Buchman, et. al, 2002). The SBI group received information in two different phases in order to plan and solve the math problem. These phases included problem solution instruction, which used story problems, and problem schemata instruction, which helped the students to determine the type of problem and how to go about solving it with a schematic diagram. Depending on the type of problem, whether it be a multiplicative compare problem or a proportion problem, different instructions were given to the students to identify ways to solve it. The details given to these students on how to go about solving the problem were precise and the students were taught to implement the process used to solve problems, given instruction on how to determine the key factors of the math problem and how to specifically go about solving it using a diagram. Alternately, instruction for the GSI group was designed to teach students to use a think-along sheet to help guide them through the problem solving procedure. Data Collection Students were all given four problem-solving tests that each had 16 multiplicative compare and proportion tests and were used to develop the pre-tests, post-tests, maintenance tests and follow-up tests. The four tests were only different in the terms used in the story context and the values of the numbers, otherwise, problems were all similar. Another generalized test was designed that had 10 transfer problems to tests the learned skills but with more complexity in the problems. All tests were conducted in quiet rooms, students were required to show their work and were not given any hints by the instructors of whether or not they were doing a problem right or wrong. The pre-test was given prior to the instructional sessions; the posttest and generalization tests were given immediately following the instructional courses; the maintenance test was given approximately one to two weeks after the courses were completed; and a follow up test was presented within three months after the course completion in order to see where the student was at before the took the specific courses, how they were doing during the course, and how much of the problem solving methods were absorbed and put to use following the course (Deatline-Buchman, et. Al, 2002). Data Analysis The researchers conducted two steps of data analysis to take into account the data for all 22 students while the students with learning disabilities were in fact, given additional analysis measures. Despite the additional analysis given, the results for all students, with or without school recognized learning disabilities were pretty much the same across the entire sample. ANOVAs were also performed in order to test the pre-treatment group equality on the target and transfer problems (Deatline-Buchman, et. al, 2002). Findings Findings showed that students who were in the SBI group significantly outperformed the GSI group, both on an immediate post-test and then an additional test up to three months down the road (Deatline-Buchman, et. al, 2002). It is thought that this type of SBI curriculum could not only help students with learning disabilities but could help students in all types of math skill levels. It is the process that is much more in depth that is taught in the SBI that is much more in depth and helps students to completely evaluate the problem at hand to fully comprehend it. From pre-test to post-treatment, the SBI group showed a significant improvement in their ability to complete the various mathematic word problems. However, the GSI group's performance on the generalization test did not show that there were significant changes from pre-test to post-treatment analysis indicative that the instructional methods were not as effective as the SBI processes in which to teach students with learning disabilities how to go about learning ways to solve mathematical word problems (Deatline-Buchman, et. al, 2002). Limitations Limitations of this experiment are very few. They used a fairly small test group with 22 students so if true results were to be analyzed, they could use a much larger statistical group. While some of these children were learning disabled, a select few were just falling behind in math while one was emotionally troubled. This study was designed with learning disabled students in mind so the fact that they even included the other two sectors is questionable. They should have also used the techniques on more advanced math students to also see if the teaching methods indicated similar outcomes. Additionally, their ethnic backgrounds were taken into account, however, they were all from the same region in the United States. If they had moved their test to a different location in the United States, it is questionable whether or not the results would have the same conclusion. One would have to ask, what is the home life and the emphasis on education in their home environments like? Also, this experiment took into account IQ test scores, while only some were available. To be more equal across the board, all students should have had their IQ performances taken into consideration, plus they did not indicate which students for which they had IQ scores for. Additionally, it was not noted what the severity of the learning disabilities were. Different disabilities have different outcomes on the learning process so that makes this a fairly generalized experiment. Other than that, this was a pretty thorough experiment given the research in which the authors conducted the research on. Implications For Practice From my own personal experiences, I have worked both as a fifth grade elementary educator and now I teach at an alternative high school for boys. While I was a fifth grade teacher, I had a few students that did have learning disabilities and ranged in a matter of severity. Some had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autistic, speech disorders, deaf or hard of hearing and other types of learning disabilities. I have students in my alternative school occupation that additionally have learning disorders and are at-risk in many different ways. Several of the boys have had rough pasts and have parents that do not support them or are in jail and a few of them have been incarcerated themselves. One student has cerebral palsy and he has additional obstacles to overcome due to the physical disabilities rather than just his emotional behavior and home life issues. It is my task to oftentimes, not just teach them, but sometimes I am the only bit of inspiration that they have. It is a sad stack of obstacles for them to overcome, however, due to the necessity of learning how to construct a thinking process in order to solve word problems is now more crucial for them than ever. It will be more difficult to implicate due to their older age and they have been taught many different methods throughout their journey in school. I believe that through instruction on my part, I could take into consideration the use of SBI tactics that would help them to be more successful in the future, particularly in their job outlook. Oftentimes, I am one of the only positive role models some of these boys have. It can be difficult some days and others, quite rewarding. It is amazing to see breakthroughs with each individual student. I work extensively trying to develop them emotional management skills for these boys with behavior issues. Oftentimes, I find that their performance on tests is due to test anxiety or lack of self-confidence. Through the use of SBI, they could learn new methodology in how to solve mathematical word problems and with an increase in their ability to comprehend and complete word math problems, it would help to build up their self-confidence. It inspires me to want to look more into this curriculum and perhaps become trained to administer the curriculum so that down the road, so that they will in fact, beyond their school years, become much more efficient and capable which would in turn help them to obtain higher paying jobs and hopefully extend their education beyond high school. I worked as a counselor at a camp for children this past summer from the ages 9-15 with various learning disabilities and handicaps. I was selected due to my experience with working with special education and alternative education students. It does make me want to look more closely at being able to help those kids through similar method with measurements of progress, recordings, and other techniques to monitor their progression in the subject of math. It also would mean that these children could be exposed to these techniques at an earlier age and would be more proficient in math and problem solving in latter years of schooling. Though it would be a limited exposure time during a summer camp, the SBI technique would help children and teenagers alike to progress their critical thinking skills, reading comprehension and the ability to sort out methods in which to solve mathematical problems. Teenagers, however, are more difficult as they have learned to cope with their learning disability and may have a hard time trying to rework the methods in which they have previously been taught to learn. It is my theory that through SBI educational methods, it is never too late to start a student in learning a technique that could definitely change the outcome of the rest of their lives. References Cawleyley, J.F., Parmar, R.S., Yan, W., & Miller, J. H. (1998). Arithmetic computation performance of students with learning disabilities: Implications for curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 67, 311-328. Deatline-Buchman, A., Jitendra, A. K., Xin, Y. P. (2005). Effects of Mathematical Word Problem-Solving Instruction on Middle School Students with Learning Problems. The Journal of Special Education, 39(3), pp. 181-192. The Hammill Institute on Disability. Goldman, S. R., Hasselbring, T.S., & the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). Achieving meaningful mathematics literacy for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 198-208. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000.) Principles and standards for school mathematics. Retrieved June 28, 2005, from http://standards.nctm.org. National Education Goals Panel. (1997). National Education Goals Report Summary, 1997. Washington, D.C.; Author. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub L. No. 107-110. 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Read More