Article on Learning Disabilities

Doabler, C. T., Cary, M., Jungjohann, K., Clarke, B., Fien, H., Baker, S., & ... Chard, D.

                       (2012). Enhancing Core Mathematics Instruction for Students at Risk for Mathematics 

                       Disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44(4), 48-57. 

            Students with learning disabilities related to math have difficulties developing math proficiency, which includes both conceptual and procedural knowledge.  A student demonstrates conceptual knowledge by relating abstract symbols to real world representation.  Procedural knowledge relates to route memorization.  The authors advocate for Explicit and Systematic Instruction, which incorporates unambiguous teacher models, sequenced examples, scaffolding, timely feedback, and cumulative review.  In the elementary schools in Oregon who adopted these procedures, there was a reduced achievement gap among students at risk for poor performance based on their mathematical disabilities, or MD.

            The article points out that teachers need to facilitate opportunities for students to communicate their mathematical thinking in order to enhance instruction for students with MD.  I have experiences in my algebra courses in which verbalizing mathematical thinking was a key component to rebuilding our curriculum to align to the Common Core.  I am happy to see that our district is heading in the right direction to meet the needs of exceptional learners.  The authors also suggested that teachers use questioning appropriately.  They should avoid simple “yes” or “no” questions in order to give students the opportunity to explain their thinking.

            I think the eight guidelines for incorporating the instructional procedures were particularly strong.  They reaffirmed the methods that I currently use and gave me new ideas to incorporate in the classroom.  In particular “I do it.  We do it.  You do it.” is a good memory device for teachers to incorporate scaffolding in the classroom.  I found it interesting that teachers should introduce regular teen numbers like 16 and 17 before 11 and 12 because of the irregularities in the names.  I would have never imagined learning numbers out of chronological order, but it does bring up a valid point, especially for children with MD.  A conflicting point in the article was related to cumulative review; my previous supervisor did not advocate for reviewing previously learned material.  He thought that it was a waste of instructional time.  This could be a discrepancy between regular education and special education teaching methods.  I also find it difficult to use as much modeling as the authors advocate.  I feel that it is easier to find manipulatives like place value charts in the elementary grades.  Many topics that we teach in the secondary level are more abstract with fewer demonstrative models available.