579269

research-article2015
ISCXXX10.1177/1053451215579269Intervention in School and ClinicPowell

Feature Article
Intervention in School and Clinic 2015, Vol. 51(2) 90­–96
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2015
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1053451215579269
isc.sagepub.com

Connecting Evidence-Based Practice With

Implementation Opportunities in Special Education
Mathematics Preparation

Sarah R. Powell, PhD1

Abstract
Over the past two decades, changes in legislation and mathematics standards, along with the increased placement of
students with disabilities in general education settings, have resulted in higher expectations for what students with
disabilities will be able to know and do related to mathematics. To adequately prepare for the demands of teaching
mathematics to students with disabilities, it is incumbent upon special education programs to identify ways to increase
the mathematical knowledge and skills of preservice special educators. Effective preparation in mathematics related
to special education requires (a) awareness of legislative requirements and guiding standards, (b) understanding the
etiology of mathematics difficulty, (c) familiarity with mathematics content, (d) understanding pedagogy related to special
education and mathematics education, (e) knowledge of assessment to gauge student progress, (f) familiarity with evidence-
based practices, and (g) authentic experiences in the field.

Keywords
special education, mathematics, teacher preparation, inclusion, standards

Many preservice educators feel unprepared for the rigors of
mathematics instruction (Adler & Davis, 2006), and many
educators, especially females, experience anxiety when
teaching mathematics (Beilock, Gunderson, Ramirez, &
Levine, 2010). Recent standards (i.e., Common Core) have
increased the mathematics expectations for all students,
including students with disabilities (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2010), and legislation has promoted
the use of evidence-based programs for instruction
(Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act
[IDEIA], 2004; No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2002).
These standards and legislation, along with the inclusion of
students with disabilities in general mathematics class-
rooms, has resulted in greater expectations of the mathe-
matical knowledge and pedagogical skills of preservice
special educators. Some teacher educators and researchers
of teacher education believe that (a) teacher preparation
programs do not adequately prepare preservice educators in
the area of mathematics (Chard & Cibulka, 2013; Sleeter,
2014), (b) in-service educators are not implementing
evidence-based practices with regularity (Kretlow & Helf,
2013), and (c) there is wide variability in the quality of
teacher preparation programs in the United States (Sindelar,
Brownell, & Billingsley, 2010).
Preparing preservice educators to teach mathematics is
of utmost importance if students are to receive high-quality
mathematics instruction (Tatto & Senk, 2011). Educators
who will teach mathematics to students need to establish
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK; Lannin et al., 2013)
as this is directly related to student achievement (Campbell
et al., 2014). PCK includes knowledge of the mathematics
curriculum, knowledge of mathematics assessment,
instructional strategies for teaching mathematics, and
knowledge of student understanding of mathematics. Some
teacher preparation sequences related to mathematics focus
1
University of Texas at Austin, USA
Corresponding Author:
Sarah R. Powell, PhD, Department of Special Education, University of
Texas at Austin, 1 University Station D5300, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
Email: srpowell@austin.utexas.edu

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on October 5, 2015

Powell 91

Figure 1.  Key elements of a mathematics preparation program for special educators. Key elements of a mathematics preparation
program for special educators. Note, the size of each circle is arbitrary and does not indicate the relative importance of each element.

primarily on increasing preservice educators’ mathematical Legislation and Standards

knowledge with less emphasis on mathematics teaching
(Swars, Smith, Smith, Hart, & Carothers, 2013). In other
cases, the lack of teacher educators with mathematics and
special education experience leads preservice educators to
take courses related to general mathematics from general
education instructors with little emphasis on special educa-
tion (K. Brown, Welsh, Hill, & Cipko, 2008). Neither of
these scenarios adequately prepares special educators for
teaching students with disabilities.
Key Elements in Mathematics
Preparation
Effective special educator preparation in mathematics
requires the convergence of many components of mathemat-
ics, including legislation and standards, etiology of math dif-
ficulty, mathematics content, pedagogy from general and
special education, mathematics assessment, evidence-based
practices in mathematics, and field experiences. See Figure 1
for a graphic organizer highlighting suggested components
for mathematics preparation of special educators. Future
research is necessary to determine which, if any, elements are
necessary, unnecessary, or missing from Figure 1. These ele-
ments do not have to be covered in a single course; rather,
elements may be covered over several courses or experi-
ences. In fact, a sequence of courses tightly connected with
field experiences related to mathematics preparation may be
most meaningful for preservice educators (Zeichner, 2010).
The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, NCLB, required all school-age students,
including students with disabilities, to have access to the
general education curriculum (Yell, Katsiyannas, & Shiner,
2006). To ensure that students with disabilities receive
instruction aligned with general curriculum standards, it is
necessary for special educators to understand instructional
mandates related to NCLB and the instructional tenets of
the most recent iteration of special education legislation,
such as IDEIA (2004). For example, NCLB requires the use
of “scientifically based” methods, and IDEIA echoed that
language for core academic areas, such as mathematics. By
learning about legislation related to students with disabili-
ties, preservice educators learn about expected classroom
instructional practices.
In addition to legislative requirements, familiarity with
standards and their relation to core curricula can provide
preservice educators with critical guideposts for determin-
ing effective instruction in mathematics. Even though the
general curriculum (e.g., textbooks, programs, approaches)
may differ from school district to school district, exposure
to several of the current sets of standards that influence
local curriculum helps preservice educators understand ver-
tical and horizontal planning as it relates to mathematics.
Specifically, the principles and standards from the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000) have influenced
the development of mathematics curricula for the past two

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on October 5, 2015

92 Intervention in School and Clinic 51(2)
decades. The principles inform how to teach, and the stan-
dards inform what to teach across prekindergarten through
high school. More recently, the Common Core mathematics
standards have been adopted by many states and will influ-
ence mathematical practice and content in the next decade.
How to address this key element?
•• Teach what makes a practice “scientifically vali-
dated” or “evidence based.” Provide practice on
reading research and identifying appropriate evi-
dence-based practices.
•• Review guiding standards and explicitly teach stan-
dards-based vocabulary and concepts. Terms such as
array, multiplicative comparison, and finite decimals
may be unfamiliar to preservice educators.
•• Provide ample practice opportunities with varying
pedagogies. Teach standard algorithms alongside
alternative methods (e.g., partial products, lattice
multiplication). Mastery of different approaches can
deepen preservice educators’ understanding of the
mathematical concepts and prepare educators to indi-
vidualize instruction for students with disabilities.
Etiology of Mathematics Difficulty  preparation programs (Copur-Gencturk & Lubienski, 2013);
Another shift in the content of mathematics instruction for
special educators is a focus on the source of students’ math-
ematics difficulty, as the research base on etiology has
expanded greatly in the last decade (e.g., Geary, Hoard,
Nugent, & Bailey, 2013). This includes contributing factors
for mathematics difficulty, common areas of difficulty, and
learning trajectories as well as understanding the diagnosis
of a specific learning disability (SLD) in mathematics and
how mathematics difficulty is commonly comorbid with
other disabilities, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) or an SLD in reading (Fletcher, 2005).
How to address this key element?
•• Teach about common risk factors or early warning
signs for mathematics difficulty. Help preservice
educators learn how to identify students who warrant
early intervention using diagnostic tools, such as for-
mal progress monitoring measures (e.g., Lembke &
Foegen, 2009) or standardized measures (e.g.,
KeyMath; Connolly, 2007).
•• Review learning trajectories of students with mathe-
matics difficulty and how to reinforce foundational
mathematics skills while working toward general
curriculum goals (Powell, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2013).
•• Highlight cognitive strategies that help students with
comorbid disabilities complete mathematics work
while controlling for other disabilities. For example,
student with an SLD in mathematics comorbid with
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on October 5, 2015
ADHD may benefit from cognitive strategy instruc-
tion that helps the student plan for completing com-
putation problems (Iseman & Naglieri, 2011).
Mathematics Content 
With the mandate of NCLB that all students have access to
the general curriculum and the implementations of rigorous
mathematics standards in many states (e.g., Common
Core), teacher educators can help special educators develop
a deep and meaningful understanding of mathematics
informed by such standards. As special educators often
receive certification across elementary and secondary lev-
els, the mathematics preparation focus ranges from early
numeracy skills to understanding operations to computa-
tion with whole numbers and rational numbers. Mathematics
content also includes mathematics related to money, time,
geometry, measurement, statistics, and algebra along with
problem solving across all areas of mathematics. As the
mathematical content knowledge of educators is positively
correlated to student performance, it is paramount that pre-
service educators receive extensive preparation on mathe-
matics content (Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005). Mathematics
content, however, cannot be the sole focus of mathematics
content tied to specific pedagogy represents more appropri-
ate and comprehensive preparation.
How to address this key element?
•• Teach mathematics content from early numeracy
through algebra. Many students are expected to begin
algebra course work in earlier grades than previously
expected (Stein, Kaufman, Sherman, & Hillen, 2011).
Ensure preservice educators understand the content
and how to appropriately teach the content.
•• Teach how to horizontally plan mathematics instruc-
tion (i.e., during a school year) and vertically plan
(i.e., across several school years) so educators pro-
vide instruction on critical content in sequential and
meaningful ways.
Mathematics Pedagogy and Special Education
Pedagogy 
Theories of learning and empirical research from two peda-
gogical areas inform the preparation of preservice educators
in the area of mathematics—mathematics pedagogy and
special education pedagogy. Insights from research on spe-
cial education pedagogy provide a strong road map for
instructional planning in mathematics. For example,
research on explicit instruction (Kroesbergen, Van Luit, &
Maas, 2004), schemas for solving word problems (Powell,
2011), or building fluency (Codding, Burns, & Lukito,
Powell 93

2011) can help preservice educators plan mathematics Mathematics Assessment 

instruction that is evidence based and meets standards.
Assessment plays a critical role in the delivery of mathe-
Pedagogy includes designing instruction for students with
matics instruction (VanDerHeyden & Burns, 2005).
disabilities, implementing instruction, and formally and
Learning about assessment may occur in a separate assess-
informally assessing whether such instruction is improving
ment course or may be embedded within mathematics
student outcomes. Understanding learning theories (e.g.,
courses. Assessment knowledge encompasses high-stakes
behaviorism, positivism) that contribute special education
assessments and adequately preparing students to take such
research and teaching is also important for preservice teach-
assessments, diagnostic assessments and how information
ers. For example, behaviorism informs specific practices in
from diagnostics can inform instruction and give special
mathematics, such as constant time delay, taped problems,
educators a picture of student strengths and weaknesses,
or cover, copy, and compare for learning math facts (Poncy,
and informal mathematics assessments, such as portfolios,
Skinner, & McCallum, 2012). With positivism, educators
math journals, or exit slips (Suurtamm, Koch, & Arden,
should seek and use interventions or instructional practices
2010). As an informal assessment, research has demon-
that have demonstrated, through quantitative research, to be
strated the power of error analysis of student work to deter-
effective for students (e.g., Fuchs et al., 2009).
mine primary causes for misunderstandings or mistakes (G.
Because many students with disabilities receive mathe-
Brown & Quinn, 2006). Many educators, however, can
matics instruction in general classroom settings, it is neces-
identify error patterns but not provide appropriate instruc-
sary that special educators understand mathematics
tion on correcting errors (Riccomini, 2005). Breaking math-
pedagogy and what might be considered typical practice in
ematics problems down step by step and analyzing student
the general classroom. Learning theories commonly associ-
work provides educators with insight as to where to focus
ated with mathematics education help preservice educators
instruction.
understand driving forces behind general curricula and
Progress-monitoring measures assist special educators in
teaching strategies. Sometimes, theories from mathematics
learning whether instructional practices for students are
and special education have more similarities than differ-
effective or need to be altered. Understanding progress
ences (Boyd & Bargerhuff, 2009), so an awareness of alter-
monitoring includes knowing how to select and administer
native learning theories contributes to increasing preservice
progress-monitoring measures, how to appropriately score
educator knowledge. When teacher educators teach about
such measures, and how to interpret data to determine when
these different theories, the knowledge base of special edu-
a student requires an instructional change (Lembke,
cators related to mathematics and special education peda-
Hampton, & Beyers, 2012).
gogy increases. As with everything in special education, the
emphasis on every student as an individual is paramount,
How to address this key element?
and all mathematics instruction should be individualized to
meet the individual student’s needs. •• Teach specific mathematics assessments in the
development of instruction and intervention (e.g.,
How to address this key element? KeyMath; Connolly, 2007).
•• Include training on specific mathematics progress-
•• Highlight research related to special education peda- monitoring tools, such as AIMSweb, easyCBM, and
gogy. Discuss theories driving special education DIBELS Math. Highlight decision-making rules that
research and teaching. Teach strategies related to lead to informed choices about the effectiveness of
teaching students with disabilities (e.g., pacing les- instruction.
sons, providing feedback, scaffolding learning, using •• Teach preservice educators to select appropriate
manipulatives; Cass, Cates, Smith, & Jackson, 2003; accommodations for mathematics assessment
Fuchs & Fuchs, 2002; Xin, Jitendra, & Deatline- (Ketterlin-Geller, Yovanoff, & Tindal, 2007).
Buchman, 2005).
•• Highlight research on mathematics pedagogy and
discuss relevant theories.
Evidence-Based Practices 
•• Teach strategies for teaching mathematics in differ- As mentioned previously, both NCLB and IDEIA mandate
ent settings (e.g., self-contained classrooms, resource the use of evidence-based practices or research-validated
rooms, multitier instructional groups, general class- instruction for students with disabilities. To meet federal
rooms) as many schools place special educators mandates, teacher educators can focus preparation on locat-
alongside general educators for mathematics instruc- ing research-validated interventions, selecting interventions
tion (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007). appropriate for students with disabilities, and implementing
Focus on ways special educators can work collabora- these interventions with high levels of fidelity. Research-
tively with general educators. validated interventions, such as those recognized by the

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on October 5, 2015

94 Intervention in School and Clinic 51(2)
National Center for Intensive Intervention (www.inten-
siveintervention.org), demonstrate improved mathematics
outcomes for students with disabilities (Clarke et al., 2011).
Although there are a select number of research-validated
mathematics interventions, the current inventory does not
include interventions for every math skill or at every grade
level. Therefore, an awareness of practices with a strong
evidence base helps preservice educators provide evidence-
based practices to students with disabilities. Four of the
most widely researched evidence-based practice areas in
mathematics include the use of explicit instruction, the use
of the concrete-representational-abstract framework, the
use of schemas or heuristics for problem solving, and estab-
lishing fluency (Fuchs et al., 2008).
How to address this key element?
•• Teach how to locate, evaluate, select, and implement
evidence-based interventions. Review websites,
such as the Best Evidence Encyclopedia (www.
bestevidence.org) or the National Center for Intensive
Intervention (www.intensiveintervention.org).
•• Practice teaching using explicit instruction. Focus
teaching mathematical concepts and procedures using
hands-on (i.e., concrete) manipulatives and pictorial
representations (i.e., representational). Teach the ben-
efits of using schemas/heuristics to organize problem-
solving work. Discuss fluency building activities.
Field Experiences  4. How do we ensure the mathematical competency of
Field experiences can help preservice educators understand
how all these elements consolidate into productive teaching
for students with disabilities. In such experiences, preser-
vice educators observe expert educators and implement
their developing skill set related to course work on teaching
and classroom management (Darling-Hammond, 2006).
Frequently, field experiences in teacher preparation pro-
grams give preservice educators experiences in school set-
tings, but these experiences do not necessarily align with
courses (Grossman, Hammerness, McDonald, & Ronfeldt,
2008). When preservice educators participate in field expe-
riences related to mathematics course work, however, the
experience hours are many fewer compared to field experi-
ences for reading and language arts.
How to address this key element?
•• Set up and supervise varied field experiences.
Consider using in-school, after-school, or summer
programs to boost preservice educator experiences
with providing mathematics instruction to students
with disabilities. Require preservice educators to
apply preparation program learning in classroom
environments.
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on October 5, 2015
Conclusion
To support special educators’ skill in delivering mathemat-
ics instruction, researchers propose developing PCK in pre-
service educators. If educators demonstrate PCK, they have
knowledge of the mathematics curriculum, mathematics
assessment, instructional strategies, and student mathemat-
ics trajectories (Borko & Whitcomb, 2008). Yet, a holistic
preparation program for special educators, in particular,
goes beyond PCK to include an understanding of the back-
ground of mathematics disability or difficulty, special edu-
cation pedagogy with a focus on providing instruction in
inclusion settings, use of research-validated or evidence-
based practices, and integrative field experiences that allow
preservice teachers to observe and participate in quality
mathematics instruction in authentic settings.
In order for teacher preparation programs to thoroughly
address the elements outlined in this article, several recom-
mendations are provided. First, mathematics preparation
requires parity with reading preparation. Guiding questions
for program can include the following:
1. How many courses specific to mathematics do we
offer?
2. Over the course of a preservice educator’s program,
how many specific assignments related to mathe-
matics do we assign?
3. How many major assignments are related to
mathematics?
our preservice educators?.
Second, special education programs can look to collabo-
rate with teacher educators in mathematics education to
coteach or provide a variety of mathematics content and
pedagogical courses and field experiences. As many special
educators will teach in inclusive settings, collaboration
between general education and special education is para-
mount. However, it is necessary for preservice educators to
receive course work and experiences related to the special-
ized nature of mathematics disability taught by instructors
with expertise in mathematics disability.
Third, if no faculty members possess special education
mathematics expertise, then programs should consider hir-
ing current or former special educators to teach mathemat-
ics preparation courses for special educators.
Finally, providing multiple opportunities for preservice
educators to work in special and general education class-
rooms of students with disabilities can enhance preservice
educators’ practical knowledge. Programs could consider
coordinating in-school, after-school, or summer programs
wherein preservice teachers provide specialized mathemat-
ics instruction to students with mathematics difficulty or dis-
ability. In sum, mastering the knowledge and pedagogical
Powell 95
skills required to support students with disabilities in math-
ematics places great demands on teacher preparation pro-
grams. Programs that are successful in addressing the
elements addressed in this paper are more likely to produce
confident special educators who possess the skills necessary
to teach mathematics.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Adler, J., & Davis, Z. (2006). Opening another black box:
Researching mathematics for teaching in mathematics teacher
education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
37, 270–296.
Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., & Levine, S. C.
(2010). Female teachers’ math anxiety affects girls’ math
achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 1860–1863.
Borko, H., & Whitcomb, J. A. (2008). Teachers, teaching, and
teacher education: Comments on the National Mathematics
Advisory Panel’s report. Educational Researcher, 37, 565–572.
Boyd, B., & Bargerhuff, M. E. (2009). Mathematics education
and special education: Searching for common ground and
the implications for teacher education. Mathematics Teacher
Education and Development, 11, 54–67.
Brown, G., & Quinn, R. J. (2006). Algebra students’ difficulty
with fractions: An error analysis. Australian Mathematics
Teacher, 62(4), 28–40.
Brown, K. S., Welsh, L. A., Hill, K. H., & Cipko, J. P. (2008).
The efficacy of embedding special education instruction in
teacher preparation programs in the United States. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 24, 2087–2094.
Campbell, P. F., Rust, A. H., Nishio, M., DePiper, J. N., Smith, T.
M., Frank, T. J., . . .Choi, Y. (2014). The relationship between
teachers’ mathematical content and pedagogical knowledge,
teachers’ perceptions, and student achievement. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 45, 419–459.
Cass, M., Cates, D., Smith, M., & Jackson, C. (2003). Effects
of manipulative instruction on solving area and perimeter
problems by students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 112–120.
Chard, D., & Cibulka, J. G. (2013). The quest for better educators.
Education Next, 13(4), 50–55.
Clarke, B., Smolkowski, K., Baker, S. K., Fien, H., Doabler, C.
T., & Chard, D. J. (2011). The impact of a comprehensive
tier 1 core kindergarten program on the achievement of students
at risk in mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 111,
561–584.
Codding, R. S., Burns, M. K., & Lukito, G. (2011). Meta-analysis
of mathematic basic-fact fluency interventions: A component
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on October 5, 2015
analysis. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26,
36–47.
Connolly, A. J. (2007). KeyMath3 diagnostic assessment. San
Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Copur-Gencturk, Y., & Lubienski, S. T. (2013). Measuring math-
ematical knowledge for teaching: A longitudinal study using
two measures. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
16, 211–236.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 300–314.
Fletcher, J. M. (2005). Predicting math outcomes: Reading pre-
dictors and comorbidity. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38,
308–312.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Principles for the prevention and
intervention of mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 16, 85–95.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino,
P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Intensive intervention for
students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles
of effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31,
79–92.
Fuchs, L. S., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher,
J. M., Fuchs, D., . . .Zumeta, R. O. (2009). Remediating num-
ber combination and word problem deficits among students
with mathematics difficulties: A randomized control trial.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 561–576.
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Bailey, D. H. (2013).
Adolescents’ functional numeracy is predicted by their
school entry number system knowledge. PLoS ONE, 8(1),
1–8.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K. M., McDonald, M., & Ronfeldt,
M. (2008). Constructing coherence: Structural predictors
of perceptions of coherence in NYC teacher education pro-
grams. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 273–287.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teach-
ers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42,
371–406.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20
U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Iseman, J. S., & Naglieri, J. A. (2011). A cognitive strategy
instruction to improve math calculation for children with
ADHD and LD: A randomized controlled study. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 44, 184–195.
Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Yovanoff, P., & Tindal, G. (2007).
Developing a new paradigm for conducting research on
accommodations in mathematics testing. Exceptional
Children, 73, 331–347.
Kretlow, A. G., & Helf, S. S. (2013). Teacher implementation
of evidence-based practices in Tier 1: A national survey.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 36, 167–185.
Kroesbergen, E. H., Van Luit, J. E. H., & Maas, C. J. M. (2004).
Effectiveness of explicit and constructivist mathematics
instruction for low-achieving students in the Netherlands. The
Elementary School Journal, 104, 233–251.
Lannin, J. K., Webb, M., Chval, K., Arbaugh, F., Hicks, S., Taylor,
C., & Bruton, R. (2013). The development of beginning math-
ematics teacher pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 16, 403–426.
96 Intervention in School and Clinic 51(2)
Lembke, E., & Foegen, A. (2009). Identifying early numeracy
indicators for kindergarten and first-grade students. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 24, 12–20.
Lembke, E. A., Hampton, D., & Beyers, S. J. (2012). Response to
intervention in mathematics: Critical elements. Psychology in
the Schools, 49, 257–272.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles
and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices &
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common
Core State Standards mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110,
§ 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & McCallum, E. (2012). A com-
parison of class-wide taped problems and cover, copy, and
compare for enhancing mathematics fluency. Psychology in
the Schools, 49, 744–755.
Powell, S. R. (2011). Solving word problems using schemas: A
review of the literature. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 26, 94–108.
Powell, S. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2013). Reaching the
mountaintop: Addressing the Common Core standards in
mathematics for students with mathematics difficulties.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 28, 38–48.
Riccomini, P. J. (2005). Identification and remediation of sys-
tematic error patterns in subtraction. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 28, 233–242.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007).
Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of
qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416.
Sindelar, P. T., Brownell, M. T., & Billingsley, B. (2010). Special
education teacher education research: Current status and
future directions. Teacher Education and Special Education,
33, 8–24.
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on October 5, 2015
Sleeter, C. (2014). Toward teacher education research that informs
policy. Educational Researcher, 43, 146–153.
Stein, M. K., Kaufman, J. H., Sherman, M., & Hillen, A. F. (2011).
Algebra: A challenge at the crosswords of policy and practice.
Review of Educational Research, 81, 453–492.
Suurtamm, C., Koch, M., & Arden, A. (2010). Teachers’ assess-
ment practices in mathematics: Classrooms in the context
of reform. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and
Practice, 17, 399–417.
Swars, S. L., Smith, S. Z., Smith, M. E., Hart, L. C., & Carothers,
J. (2013). Providing space for elementary prospective teach-
ers’ viewpoints on mathematics content courses: A two-
dimensional model of learning. Action in Teacher Education,
35, 372–386.
Tatto, M. T., & Senk, S. (2011). The mathematics education of
future primary and secondary teachers: Methods and findings
from the teacher education and development study in math-
ematics. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 121–137.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Burns, M. K. (2005). Using curricu-
lum-based assessment and curriculum-based measurement to
guide elementary mathematics instruction: Effect on individ-
ual and group accountability scores. Assessment for Effective
Intervention, 30(3), 15–31.
Xin, Y. P., Jitendra, A. K., & Deatline-Buchman, A. (2005).
Effects of mathematical word problem-solving instruction on
middle school students with learning problems. The Journal
of Special Education, 39, 181–192.
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannas, A., & Shiner, J. G. (2006). The No Child
Left Behind Act, adequate yearly progress, and students with
disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 32–39.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between cam-
pus courses and field experiences in college- and university-
based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61,
89–99.