Effective mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities

¶ … Mathematics Instructions for Students With Learning Disabilities

The work of Steedly, Dragoo, Arafeh, & Luke, (2008) considers strategies for enabling persons with learning disabilities (LD) to learn mathematics. The authors contend that learning math requires a systematic approach whether a persons has a LD or not. This approach must consider the multiple elements necessary to process and understand mathematics. It is important therefore for teachers and parents to understand the challenges faced by students and create systems that assist in ameliorating these challenges. Persons who have received injuries to the head or any other brain injury are particularly prone to experience problems in learning mathematics.

The major question poses by the researchers for investigation was what instructional approaches are effective in the teaching of mathematics to persons with a learning disability. This problem formed the backbone of the article and the basis for discussion. It was evident that before this question could be answered there were some preliminary questions to be explicated. There was the consideration of; what students need to know how to do mathematically? This initial question is important because it provides a window of understanding into the problem. The problem is considered a cognitive problem. The cognitive nature of the problem means that there is no need to limit the search for a solution to populations where persons may have damage to the brain or some learning disability. The search for a solution can be examined in populations without these challenges because the essence of the problem is in the human cognition, and the mechanisms employed by the brain to grasp and relate to mathematical concepts and data.

This particular study engaged the work of multiple researchers to produce a coherent and compelling argument. The argument invited the continued research in the area and the adoption of previously identified tools that would make it easier for persons to learn mathematics. The study examined the work from four expert panels on what students should learn to do in mathematics. Additionally, the researchers examined the work of a wide sample of researchers the sample size n=10. The work sampled for the study was from peer-reviewed journals some of which were online and others were in hard copy. The authors did not provide a description of the sample by age, sex, or socioeconomic status. It would however be possible to suggest that the majority of the sample came from persons from the middle and upper middle class in the society. All the persons whose work was chosen were specialist in their area and the work represented recent research in the particular discipline.

The articles were chosen because of their ability to contribute to the development of four predetermined areas by the researcher. The members of the sample were chosen using purposive sampling. Each work was purposefully chosen by the researcher to adequately and appropriately represent the phenomenon under consideration. Purposive sampling allows the researcher to represent the phenomenon through the sample and does not require that the sample be statistically representative (Marshall, 1996). The quantum of error in the sample is consequently unknown but this knowledge is unnecessary, as there was no attempt by the researcher to do any type of inference from the sample to the population. This work did not employ any experimentation. Documentary analysis appears to have been used to unearth the appropriate article for the relevant section. The researchers made it clear that they used experts in the field. The experts provided the necessary technical and research competence for the researchers to produce their work. It should be noted that the article is a descriptive work that provides the reader with a description of the available resources and tools necessary to accomplish the goal of teaching persons with LD's mathematics. The use of experts gives the work high credibility, these persons who are at pivotal positions in the discipline. The amalgamation of their work into a single research article provides the reader with the unique opportunity to have a wide view of the existing positions on the topic. This view of course in not comprehensive since the authors were primarily focused on answering some very specific questions that were outline in the initial paragraphs of this review.

The data were presented in a descriptive manner highly consistent with qualitative work. Unlike quantitative studies which engage the use of statistics qualitative work places greater emphasis on the narrative and in this case on answering the research question. The researchers found that the majority of experts demonstrate that LD affects the understanding of concepts, and this impedes the comprehension of mathematics. They were also able to identify four approaches that produce better results in students with LD. The four approaches, systematic and explicit instruction, Self-instruction, peer tutoring and visual representation have been demonstrated to produce significant results in persons with LD (Steedly et al. 2008, p.3). This finding has multiple implications for the teaching community.

If the teaching community engages these approaches in a systematic and comprehensive manner, it is very possible that more students will learn mathematics easier. To do this may require some retooling in many instances as the associated pedagogy may not be completely understood by present teachers. The retooling is a costly exercise and with the present budgetary constraints, it may not be possible to have a full-scale start (Daniel, 2005). Additionally, the researcher have identified the need to have more research into the area of linking the type of intervention with the nature of the LD. This particular aspect of knowledge is absent at present but it is a critical conceptual cog that will facilitate faster learning, and reduce the trial and error phase. There is an urgent need to have this type of research undertaken by the relevant researchers thus providing better outcomes (Janus, Lefort, Cameron, & Kopechanski, 2007).

The article provided a useful exploration into the problem of teaching persons with LD mathematics. The language used by the authors was scholarly but it did not become heavy reading. It was refreshing that they could present their position without having the reader wade through an endless flow of research related jargon that may not serve to enlighten. I liked the approach taken to compiling the article. It appears that the researchers examine multiple pieces and chose only those that would add the greatest value to the work. This sifting is an aid to the reader. As you read the work, you felt as though you were engaging work that was well thought out and not reading the thinking process of the writers. I found this to be a very useful aspect of this article.