Skip to main content

Using complex learning tasks to build procedural fluency and financial literacy for young people with intellectual disability

Abstract

In this study, we investigate a program designed for young adults with intellectual disability to learn how to calculate the value of a collection of coins and notes with procedural fluency. In the first half of the paper, we establish the importance of financial literacy for people with intellectual disability and the need to address mathematical foundations using approaches that build procedural fluency. In the second half of the paper, we present findings from an analysis of pre-service teachers’ weekly reflections after having just tutored a student in the program. Using educational design research, we articulate how students build procedural fluency and what supports this type of learning. This paper will be of interest to researchers and practitioners alike who are looking to apply the latest findings on effective pedagogies to the field of inclusive education.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    The KoL program encompasses both a literacy and numeracy program. For more information about the literacy program, see Hopkins and Round (2018).

References

  1. Abbott, S., & McConkey, R. (2006). The barriers to social inclusion as perceived by people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 10(3), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629506067618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Educational design research. New York and Oxon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: a decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x11428813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Appleyard, L., & Rowlingson, K. (2013). Children and financial education: challenges for developing financial capability in the classroom. Social Policy and Society, 12(4), 507–520. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746412000644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Australian Curriculum Assessment, and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2010). The Australian Curriculum. Retrieved July, 2019 from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/

  6. Blöte, A. W., van der Burg, E., & Klein, A. S. (2001). Students’ flexibility in solving two-digit addition and subtraction problems: instruction effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 627–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.627.

  7. Blue, L., Grootenboer, P., & Brimble, M. (2014). Financial literacy education in the curriculum: making the grade or missing the mark? International Review of Economics Education, 16, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2014.07.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Burton, C. E., Anderson, D. H., Prater, M. A., & Dyches, T. T. (2013). Video self-modelling on an iPad to teach functional math skills to adolescents with autism and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 28(2), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357613478829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Charles, R. I. (2005). Big ideas and understandings as the found for elementary and middle school mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 7(3), 9–24.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cockcroft, W. (1982). Mathematics counts: report of the Committee of Inquiry into the teaching of mathematics in schools. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dowrick, M. K. (2004). Learning outcomes for students of school leaving age in special schools: a preliminary study of stakeholders’ perceptions. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 29(4), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250400014475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eagar, K., Green, J., Gordon, R., Owen, A., Masso, M., & Williams, K. (2006). Functional assessment to predict capacity for work in a population of school-leavers with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 53(3), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120600847755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fuson, K. C. (1990). Conceptual structures for multiunit numbers: implications for learning and teaching multidigit addition, subtraction and place value. Cognition and Instruction, 7(4), 343–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Geiger, V., Goos, M., & Forgasz, H. (2015). A rich interpretation of numeracy for the 21st century: a survey of the state of the field. ZDM, 47(4), 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0708-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research form a learning design perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research. New York and Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hopkins, S., & Round, P. (2018). Building stronger teacher education programmes to prepare inclusive teachers. In A. Fitzgerald, G. Parr, & J. Williams (Eds.), Re-imagining professional experience in initial teacher education: Narratives of learning (pp. 55–66). Singapore: Springer Singapore.

  17. Hordacare, A. (2017). Work Pay$: evaluation of a program to teach everyday money skills to young people with disabilities. Adelaide: Australian Industrial Transformation Institute, Flinders University Retrieved July 2019 from http://www.flinders.edu.au/fms/AITI/Documents/AITI201704_work_pays_ems_evaluation_report_final.pdf.

  18. Kirschner, P. A., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (2008). Ten steps to complex learning: a new approach to instruction and instructional design. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: a reference handbook (pp. 244–253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  19. McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., & van den Akker, J. (2006). Design research from a curriculum perspective. In J. van Den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research. New York and Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  20. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Procedural fluency in mathematics: a position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Retrieved July 2019 from https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Procedural-Fluency-in-Mathematics/

  21. Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD). (2014). PISA 2012 results: what students know and can do. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rittle-Johnson, B. (2017). Developing mathematics knowledge. Child Development Perspectives, 11(3), 184–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger, K. (2009). Iterating between lessons on concepts and procedures can improve mathematics knowledge. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908X398106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Schneider, M., Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2011). Relations among conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and procedural flexibility in two samples differing in prior knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1525–1538. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024997.

  25. Shrager, J., & Siegler, R. S. (1998). SCADS: a model of children’s strategy choices and strategy discoveries. Psychological Science, 9(5), 405(6)–405410. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Siegler, S. (1996). Emerging minds: the process of change in children’s thinking. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Siegler, R. S. (2016). How does change occur? In R. Sternberg, S. Fiske, & D. Foss (Eds.), Scientists making a difference: one hundred eminent behavioral and brain scientists talk about their most important contributions (pp. 223–227). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Swan, P., & Marshall, L. (2009). Money matters. Western Australia: R.I.C. publications.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Verschaffel, L., Luwel, K., Torbeyns, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2009). Conceptualizing, investigating, and enhancing adaptive expertise in elementary mathematics education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(3), 335–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Xin, Y. P., Grasso, E., Dipipi-Hoy, C. M., & Jitendra, A. (2005). The effects of purchasing skill instruction for individuals with developmental disabilities: a meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by The Ian Potter Foundation [Education Grant No. 20150655].

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Hopkins.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hopkins, S., O’Donovan, R. Using complex learning tasks to build procedural fluency and financial literacy for young people with intellectual disability. Math Ed Res J 33, 163–181 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-019-00279-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Financial literacy
  • Intellectual disability
  • Complex learning
  • Procedural fluency
  • Money