Next Article in Journal
ChatGPT Told Me to Say It: AI Chatbots and Class Participation Apprehension in University Students
Previous Article in Journal
Redesigning a Career Development Course in Post-Pandemic Higher Education: Integrating Blended and Cooperative Pedagogies for Enhanced Student Engagement and Employability
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 7
10.3390/educsci15070896
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Perspectives on Employing a Structured Fifth-Grade Mathematics Curriculum Based on a Learning Outcomes Model with Students with Special Educational Needs in Kuwait Mainstream Schools

by
Zaid N. Al-Shammari
1,* and
Joseph Mintz
2
1
College of Education, Kuwait University, Kuwait City 13060, Kuwait
2
UCL Institute of Education, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(7), 896; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070896
Submission received: 28 March 2025 / Revised: 4 July 2025 / Accepted: 7 July 2025 / Published: 13 July 2025
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the use of a structured learning outcomes approach for fifth-grade mathematics instruction, with a focus on students with difficulties in learning mathematics, across two mainstream schools in Kuwait. Three special education teachers, across three classes, who worked with 30 focus students, participated in the study. Teachers implemented a structured approach to curriculum and pedagogy based on a focus on learning outcomes, simultaneously supported by a dedicated technology platform, with the aim of encouraging a focus on differentiation to meet individual learning needs. This study employed a mainly qualitative approach involving interviews to gauge teacher perceptions of the extent to which this approach supported them in thinking more effectively about individual learning needs. Links are made to the extant literature in this area, and recommendations are made for future research using this learning outcomes approach based on a wider sample of mainstream schools and classrooms.

1. Introduction

In this study, we focused on students with difficulties in learning mathematics (DLM). We did not focus specifically on defined diagnostic categories such as specific mathematics learning disabilities or dyscalculia (Butterworth et al., 2011). Rather, we focused on the broad group of children with difficulties in learning mathematics, relying primarily on teacher assessment of which children in their classes fell into that grouping. This group of children is referred to in various ways in the literature—for example, children with learning difficulties (LDs) in mathematics (e.g., Mononen et al., 2022) or children with learning disabilities in mathematics (e.g., Kivirähk-Koor & Kiive, 2025). Sometimes, the group of children without a diagnosis of a specific learning difficulty such as dyscalculia, whether in mathematics or more generally, may be referred to as those with a mild learning difficulty or disability (Norwich et al., 2012). Definitions in the field of special education internationally are the subject of ongoing, often complex debates (see, for example, Mintz & Wyse, 2015; Norwich, 2013), but for the purpose of this paper, we focus on the general group of children with DLM as perceived by their teachers, independently of whether they have received a formal diagnosis. We adopted this approach because we feel it is more “ecologically” valid, i.e., it represents more closely how teachers work in the classroom—see, for example, Daniels and Garner (2013) for a discussion on the lack of pedagogic utility in the classroom of strict diagnostic categories. In this context, our overall contention is that, for children that teachers perceive as having DLM (or as sometimes also referred to barriers to learning mathematics), a focus on learning outcomes may be one way to promote teacher attention to meeting the individual needs of this group.
To date, the focus on the use of a structured learning outcomes approach to support student progress has mainly been on higher education (Schoepp, 2019). However, there is a research base on its use in compulsory-phase education, including the work of Bennett (2011) and Bennett and Gitomer (2009). Some research, in particular (e.g., Al-Shammari, 2023; Al Fariana et al., 2024), suggests that such a pedagogical approach based on a focus on learning outcomes in a structured way can promote a focus on individual student learning differences, and some research further suggests that this can positively affect student learning achievement and be effective in improving student mathematical cognition (Taguinod & Ching, 2023).
We refer in this paper, following Bennett’s (2011) seminal formulations, to a “structured learning outcomes focused mathematics approach” (or for more concise reference “a structured learning outcomes approach”) by which we mean a systematically designed, organized, and sequenced educational plan for teaching mathematics to students who build mathematical knowledge and skills in a coherent manner according to a set of defined learning outcomes, ordered to be achieved in a sequential progression of topics, concepts, and processes related to specific mathematical areas. Further, such an approach includes a focus by special education teachers on monitoring and reviewing individual student progress against such learning outcomes. This approach is based on the notion that pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment are in an intertwined relationship as considered by many researchers in the field (e.g., Ang, 2014), and, therefore, what we teach, how we teach, and what is learned cannot be considered independent of each other. Linked to this, we also crucially argue, based on Bennett (2011, 2015), that a learning outcomes approach can structure such a relationship in its actual expression in the classroom because, as Bennett argued, it makes teachers focus, reflectively, on what is expected to be achieved and assessed when formulating their pedagogical strategies in relation to a specific set of curricular content. Thus, learning outcomes and the structuring of teaching and learning are interconnected. Further with respect to children with DLM, there is a strand of the literature that argues that focusing specifically on student learning outcomes also provides an assessment structure for monitoring both individual and collective student achievements (Al-Shammari, 2010a, 2010b). And as argued again by Bennett (2011, 2015), such an approach also has the potential to provide a curricular and pedagogical approach that better meets the needs of children with learning differences. Thus, our contention is that one way of achieving this is through a focus on learning outcomes in the context of structured curriculum-based instruction. This means both a structured curriculum with defined units of learning with associated learning outcomes and defined progression steps between units of learning. Thus, specific learning outcomes specify performance achievement and relate to specific competency areas. Further, in such an approach, such learning outcomes can be varied and tailored for the needs of individual students.
There is also some interest in the ways in which learning management systems can support teachers in implementing, monitoring, and reviewing a learning outcomes-based approach in the classroom (e.g., Rowntree, 2015; Al-Shammari, 2011a, 2011b). Manizade et al. (2022) also argued that technology can be used to support monitoring and evaluating progress toward specific learning outcomes. These studies indicate how technology can play a role in supporting teachers with the tracking of progress against learning outcomes—a key element of the proposed structured learning outcomes approach—and thus, in a sense, as with all good applications of technology in professional contexts (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010), and as Anthony et al. (2015) put forward in their discussion of reflective practice in relation to difference in the classroom, reduce the “cognitive load” on teachers, and thus allowing them to give more attention to bringing to bear their professional expertise, through a process of reflection, for individual student needs. However, there has been limited, if any, attention to how technology could potentially support the implementation of a structured learning outcomes approach for students with special educational needs (SEN), either generally or specifically in relation to mathematics teaching and learning.
This study aims to fill this research gap by exploring the use of a structured learning outcomes approach, supported by a technology platform. The specific context for this study is the fifth-grade classroom across two mainstream schools in Kuwait. One rationale for the focus on this specific region in Kuwait was that, as with many schools in the region, the participating schools, at time of implementation, were not using any detailed tracking systems in a systematic way for recording and monitoring the progress of children with SEN, generally across the curriculum and specifically in mathematics. As such, this provided an opportunity to explore the impact of the introduction of a structured learning outcomes approach as an innovation in the classroom.

1.1. The Kuwait Mainstream Context

In Kuwait, special education programs initially began in 1955 with a few special education schools where students with disabilities were segregated in terms of disability and gender (Al-Shammari & Yawkey, 2007). Four decades later, in 2010, Kuwait was the first Arab country to pass a law concerning the rights of people with disabilities (Weber & City, 2012), which provided for, “… accommodations including education, transportation, employment, and health services” (Ochoa et al., 2017, p. 329). Specifically, this law states that the government must implement the inclusion of people with disabilities and learning difficulties at all stages of education. This includes inclusion within educational and rehabilitation curricula according to their sensory, physical, and mental abilities, and entitles students to inclusion in society, work, and production (Kuwait Al Youm, 2010). The Kuwait Ministry of Education (KMoE) defined students with SENs as those with learning problems in one or more areas of sensory, physical, cognitive, or other areas of functioning (Alkhaldi et al., 2002). Additional research on Kuwait (Al-Shammari & Hornby, 2019) noted that there has been a longstanding policy direction on inclusion (Care for the Handicapped Law 1996, Rights of Individuals with Disabilities 2010). The latter law states that children must receive a free and appropriate education in a variety of settings (Abbas et al., 2019). Currently, the KMoE has 29 “inclusive” schools that include over 1700 students with mild-to-moderate learning disabilities within mainstream settings (Ochoa et al., 2017), out of 187,311 students in public elementary schools (KMoE, n.d.) that are committed to providing educational services, curricula, and instructional methods, and to providing specialized professional special education teachers capable of modifying educational curricula and programs to suit students of different abilities and to meet their specific SEN and accommodate their individual differences (Al-Shammari, 2024a). These schools operate with a form of specialist resource provision (see, for example, Bond & Hebron, 2016; Al-Shammari, 2024b) for children with mild-to-moderate learning disabilities. Thus, they have a specific, self-contained classroom and class for these students. These classrooms are staffed by special education teachers with specific expertise in different curriculum areas; thus, maths instruction is delivered by a special education maths teacher along with instruction on other areas. The students with DLM in these self-contained classrooms are usually a group of learners, which is homogenous in terms of ability, achievement, or performance, with a specific special education curriculum and instructional strategies chosen to match the needs of this relatively homogeneous group.
Kuwait has a nationally set approach to curriculum, having a detailed national curriculum for specific topics, including the mathematics curriculum (KMoE, 2016; Abdullah et al., 2014). Implementing national curriculum in mathematics is quite carefully mandated and controlled, with schools required to teach the content, and units of learning have specified aims and outcomes, and a clearly defined progression across units. As such, the approach to teaching mathematics, as well as other subjects in Kuwait, broadly provides a potential context for using a structured learning outcomes approach. However, in all mainstream schools in Kuwait, tracking the progress of children with SENs against learning outcomes has been inconsistent.

1.2. A Learning Outcomes Focus and SENs

We argue, as noted, that a structured learning outcomes approach can be viewed as a way of supporting differentiation to meet individual learning needs in learning mathematics. This is of particular relevance given international concerns that special education teachers may not always have the skills and knowledge to effectively implement differentiated instruction practices to address student learning differences (Dee, 2010; Pozas et al., 2020), and indeed that teacher training for the effective use of differentiation is, in many territories, often lacking (Dee, 2010; Van Geel et al., 2019; Herner-Patnode & Lee, 2021). For example, in England, there have long been concerns that the typical one-year postgraduate teacher training programme is inadequate to ensure the effective preparation of teachers to support the needs of children with SENs in mainstream classrooms (Mintz & Wyse, 2015; Mintz et al., 2020). Also, in Kuwait, evidence has shown that current elementary teacher education programmes only moderately improved inclusive teacher competencies in preservice teachers for teaching students with DLM (across dimensions of valuing learner diversity, supporting all learners, working with others, and personal professional development) (Alsahli & Al-Shammari, in press).
Thus, as noted, we propose that one way of addressing individual learning needs is by focusing on learning outcomes, i.e., where specific learning outcomes related to specific competency areas are personalized for the needs of individual children (Shemshack & Spector, 2020), where teachers are encouraged and supported to focus on progress against specified outcomes, and where outcomes are differentiated by learners (Al-Shammari, 2023). However, it is perhaps also relevant to note our awareness of concerns in the literature that such an approach might risk a slide into performativity, especially as the terminology suggests a “result”, an outcome of learning (Al-Shammari, 2012). As James (2005) noted on this very issue, differentiation based on learning outcomes might better be seen as a process that allows the teachers to teach different abilities in ways that lead them all to have the same skillset, conceptual understanding, and ability to solve problems.

1.3. Learning Differences in Mathematics

Cunningham (2012) pointed out that there is considerable heterogeneity in mathematics ability and achievement (Hibi, 2024) in most, if not all, classrooms; thus, all classes have learning differences in mathematics, including those with children with DLM (even if only relatively in the class). Of course, some differences may have more significant impacts on understanding and achievement; thus, Fuchs et al. (2004) framed DLM as referring to those learners who have what they refer to as non-responsiveness to mathematics instruction. Such difficulties may include impairments in the fluency of retrieving mathematics facts and slower use of strategies and progress in many mathematics areas (Gersten et al., 2005), as well as difficulties with understanding mathematics concepts, symbols, facts, operations, relationships, and with the encoding process (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2007; Scanlon, 2012; Zhang et al., 2021; Cabreros, 2021; Güven Akdeniz et al., 2022).
As noted, research has indicated the potential for structured, sequenced instruction that goes “step by step” in supporting children with DLM. Some studies (e.g., Bryant et al., 2008; Fuchs et al., 2010; Mancl et al., 2012; and Swanson et al., 2014), whilst not specifically applying a learning outcomes approach, reported that students with DLM often benefit more from specific and targeted interventions designed to improve mathematics outcomes than with standard curricula. Gersten et al. (2008) reported that explicit mathematics instruction incorporating step-by-step problem-specific instruction resulted in the increased mathematics performance of students with DLM and that explicit instruction should play a key role in mathematics instruction for students with DLM. Gersten et al. (2009) shared statistically significant results in favour of heuristics, a more generalized approach that involves multiple ways to solve a problem and often includes discussion to evaluate proposed solutions. Other research (Ketterlin-Geller et al., 2008; Xin et al., 2005) also supports explicit sequenced instruction for student learning in problem solving, fractions, and general mathematics skills. Researchers (Witzel, 2005; Witzel et al., 2001; Maccini & Hughes, 2000; Mercer et al., 1994) have also suggested that a graduated instructional sequence that proceeds from concrete to representational to abstract (CRA) benefits struggling students and students with disabilities in elementary and secondary schools.
Overall, the literature suggests that, for many children with DLM, some form of structured instruction and intervention is needed; unless these students are to lag significantly behind their peers (Jitendra et al., 2013; Sayeski & Paulsen, 2010). As noted, our contention is that one way to achieve this, not fully considered to date in the literature, is a structured learning outcomes supported by a technology platform.

1.4. The Present Study

This study explored the use of a structured learning outcomes approach for teaching mathematics to children with DLM in mainstream schools in Kuwait, focusing particularly on grade 5 (age 9 to 10) classes. We performed this study using a technology platform to support special education teachers participating in this study to formulate these learning outcomes and track their progress. The key research questions for this study were as follows:
(1)
What are the perspectives of special education teachers working in those classrooms on the use of a structured learning outcomes approach supported by a technology platform for teaching fifth-grade curriculum-based mathematics to students with DLM?
(2)
To what extent do these special education teachers perceive that the use of this structured learning outcomes approach supported them in reflecting on and meeting the individual needs of such children with DLM?

2. Methods

This study followed a mainly qualitative research approach. Classes in two mainstream schools in Kuwait implemented the use of a technology platform for tracking and assessing progress against learning outcomes. The core data collected in the study were as follows: (1) field notes from the research team on the implementation of this overall “intervention” during field visits to support the introduction, training, implementation, and use of the approach (this study also includes a quantitative data element in that we also present the assessment information collected on this technology platform as a way of illuminating the type of data and progress tracking undertaken by the special education teachers in this study) and (2) interviews undertaken with the special education teachers on their perceptions about the integrated implementation of both a structured learning outcomes approach and a technology platform to support this endeavour, focused particularly on children with DLM in their classes.

2.1. Analytic Sample

The total sample was three special education teachers who participated in the study along with their reflections on their work with 30 focus students considered as having DLM, across three fifth-grade self-contained specialist classrooms within two mainstream “inclusive” schools located in the Mubarak Al-Kabeer Educational District in Kuwait, as shown in Table 1. Each classroom was taught mainly by their own special education teacher (denoted as KS1T1, KS2T1, KS2T3).

2.2. The Technology Platform

The analysis model for learning outcomes (AMLO), a technology platform developed by the first author, was used during this study to monitor the progress toward mathematics learning outcomes, with a particular emphasis on children identified, by their class teacher, as having DLM. AMLO allows special education teachers to systematically input learning outcomes and track progress toward these learning outcomes, for each class, for a specific unit of work.
AMLO is designed to extract and analyse learning outcomes, and provides reports on individual and overall learning outcomes, highlighting strengths and weaknesses in progress against learning outcomes (Al-Shammari, 2012). In line with the overall aims of the study, it is thus designed to enable special education teachers to align instructional practices with specific intended learning outcomes (Al-Shammari, 2018). In practice, AMLO consists of a systematic five-step process to input components together (curriculum requirements, learning outcomes, student achievements), mapping and linking each requirement to a specific curriculum learning outcome, thus allowing the analysis of progress against specified learning outcomes (Al-Shammari, 2010a, 2010b).
This study involved introducing special education teachers in both schools to the use of the AMLO platform and simultaneously to the use of a structured learning outcomes approach for organizing and tracking class and individual level progress, with particular attention given to the focus children with DLM in the context of the fifth-grade mathematics curriculum.
The research team supported the implementation and use of the AMLO platform and a structured learning outcomes approach for three consecutive units of work. This involved the following steps:
First: Introduction to Approach and Identifying. The research team introduced special education teachers to the idea of a structured learning outcomes approach. This involved three initial collaborative briefing meetings with special education teachers in each setting for exploring their approach to pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment, and facilitated special education teachers in reflecting on how a structured learning outcomes approach can be applied in translating their curriculum into specified learning outcomes at the whole-class level and for individual children with DLM. For example, if the curriculum area included the outcome of being able to construct a 3-D shape, a learning outcome sequence for an individual child could be as follows: (1) to be able to recognize and name a variety of 3-D shapes, (2) to be able to identify the number of faces, vertices, and edges of different 3-D shapes, and (3) to be able to select the correct net that corresponds to a particular 3-D shape and to cut out and create this shape with assistance [the addition of assistance might be a variation for a specific child with problems with fine motor skills]. The research team then worked with the special education teachers to specify these learning outcomes for the next unit of work to be taught to the class in elementary mathematics. At the same time, the special education teachers were trained in the use of the AMLO platform, including how to enter the learning outcomes into the system for the class, and how to report and track progress against these learning outcomes.
Second: AMLO Implementation. Special education teachers taught the unit of work (i.e., lessons) with the support of the AMLO platform, entering student achievements against differentiated outcomes into this platform. The study research assistants provided remote and periodic on-site support for this implementation phase, including encouraging special education teachers to engage with and review the student progress against stated learning outcomes, using the AMLO platform. There was, as noted, a specific focus within each class on children with DLM identified as having barriers to learning in mathematics, and the specific tracking of the progress of these children toward identified learning outcomes was undertaken. The achievement for each of the learning outcomes was categorized based on teacher assessment against the targeted outcomes, using in-class tests.
At the end of the first unit of work, special education teachers reviewed the achievement of individual children with DLM against the structured learning outcomes and engaged in a process of curriculum review, implementing lessons learned in the next curriculum unit of work. Special education teachers then implemented and taught this subsequent unit of mathematics instruction, repeating the same steps and the overall review of achievement. Again, this process was supported by regular visits from the research team. During these visits, field notes were taken on the process of implementation.
Finally, the three special education teachers were interviewed, focusing on their experience of using the structured learning outcomes approach, their views on the use of the AMLO platform to support this process, and their overall perceptions of how well the combined approach (technology plus structured learning outcomes approach) had supported them in focusing on the needs of individual children with DLM and meeting those needs.

2.3. Study Implementation

The KMoE granted approval for conducting this study and recruiting the participating special education teachers early in the 2022 school year. Then, this study was conducted in two mainstream schools in the Mubarak Al-Kabeer Educational District over two school years (February 2022 to February 2024).
The first year focused on developing the implementation process for this study as set out above, recruiting schools, recruiting special education teachers from these mainstream schools based on interviews and interest in the study aims chosen, gaining overall consent from schools and special education teachers, and training selected special education teachers to participate in this study. Codes for labelling schools, special education teachers, classrooms, and DLMs were applied for use in the data analyses and results. The participating special education teachers received, as noted, professional training on the AMLO platform, including readings on assessment, learning outcomes, curriculum components (outcomes, curriculum contents, and student achievements), setting up personal accounts on the AMLO platform, oral and video presentations on using the AMLO platform, and case study practices. The special education teachers also received a certificate of having completed the AMLO training.
The second year focused on implementing the use of a structured learning outcomes approach using the AMLO platform, for three units of work during April 2023 and December 2023, focusing in each class on the progress of children identified as having DLM.

2.4. Curriculum Units of Work, Pedagogy, and Measuring Achievement Against Learning Outcomes

The fifth-grade mathematics curriculum that is taught in all public schools, including the mainstream schools, is mandated by the KMoE and consists of seven learning units of mathematics instruction. Three units of mathematics were selected for this study, with each unit represented by an instruction subject: mathematics instruction-1 focused on decimal numbers; mathematics instruction-2 focused on the multiplication and division by whole and decimal numbers; and mathematics instruction-3 focused on fractions. The main rationale for selecting these three units was our aim to ensure that the schools in the study were studying as far as possible similar curricular elements to allow greater comparability between the two settings. These were the units that the schools agreed to teach in this sequence during the implementation.
As well as tracking progress during the unit, at the end of the curricular unit, as noted, the participating special education teachers measured the progress against learning outcomes in each of the three curricular units via a test given to the focus students in the three classrooms at the end of each unit’s completion. Each test included 5–7 questions linked to a specific outcome in the unit of the fifth-grade curriculum. This achievement test included a variety of questions directly linked to the outcomes of each lesson within the study units of the fifth-grade mathematics curriculum, linked to the specified learning outcomes. Each question was tied to a specific learning outcome to assess the extent to which learning outcomes were achieved for the focus children with DLM.

2.5. Teachers’ Interviews

A semi-structured teacher interview form (TIF) and guide was translated into the English language initially to allow for collaboration across the research team in Kuwait and the UK. This TIF was translated into Arabic, and then, data collected in these interviews was back-translated into English for the purposes of presenting the results. The interview questions focused on the special education teacher’s role in the school, their training in mathematics teaching and in working with children with DLM, their perceptions about the utility of tracking the progress of children with DLM using a structured learning outcomes approach, and their perceptions of the usability and effectiveness of the AMLO platform.

2.6. Pattern of Teaching in Classes

Based on the observations of the researchers during their work with the special education teachers and the classes, and the field notes made during implementation research visits, we presented a “pen portrait” of the typical pedagogical approach and use of the AMLO platform, which tended to be fairly uniform across the classes, as described below.

2.6.1. Typical Pedagogical Approaches

The preparation of instructional materials and lesson plans was largely as follows. The special education teachers provided an introductory example to review previously studied content, linking it to the foundations of the new lesson, posing a question to students to infer the new lesson’s topic, offering encouraging reinforcement, and maintaining their attention to present the new lesson’s outcomes (i.e., intended outcomes) and discussing what would be learned during the class. The teacher might then read a specific mathematics problem, clarifying what students are required to find (e.g., adding or subtracting fractions), explain the problem, and solve the first example (a learning question), and, if multiple solution methods exist, present all approaches, allowing students to choose the relevant one. Lessons might typically involve guided group learning employing a cooperative learning strategy, dividing students into small, homogeneous groups based on lesson components. The special education teacher would engage the students’ attention and direct them to follow group work instructions and conditions (e.g., maintaining quietness, cooperating within the group, active participation, and required tools). This might involve the use of group cooperation strategies, for example, with each student solving their assigned question and preparing information to share with the group.

2.6.2. Use of AMLO Platform and Structured Learning Outcomes Approach

Special education teachers typically used the AMLO platform periodically to check on the progress of individual focus students against the stated learning outcomes. This often seemed to happen at the prompting of the researchers, such as during research visits or check-ins. At the end of the first and second units, researchers also prompted the teachers to reflect on the end of unit achievement tests and reflect on the individualized strategies they may have applied for individual students. For example, one teacher reported that, with one child with suspected ADHD, the use of the structured learning approach prompted them to consider and implement the use of “physical movements” for this child, i.e., allowing them, for example, the opportunity to get up and move around, and thus promote enhanced attention in class to mathematical learning. Another teacher noted that the use of the approach prompted them to think more about the sequences involved in learning for some children with DLM, and to break down conceptual elements and learning steps. They noted this in relation to one child with regard to breaking down the steps involved in multiplying three-digit numbers, and for another in translating real-life word problems into mathematical operations.

3. Results

3.1. Learning Outcomes

Table 2 shows the aforementioned final test outcomes recorded on the AMLO platform for the focus group of students with DLM in each of these three mathematics instruction subjects. The overall average score was 91%. This relatively uniform level of achievement was perhaps not that surprising as (a) this was a relatively homogeneous group of students with DLM, who had been provided with individualized instruction in self-contained classrooms in the mainstream school system in Kuwait, and (b) the aim of the implemented structured learning outcomes approach was indeed to ensure that all children were able to reach the learning outcomes specified for the unit. Of course, the research design in this study cannot elucidate the specific impact of the approach on learning outcomes, nor is it intended to do so; nevertheless, the actual achievements of the students are, we contend, useful contextual information for the implementation of the approach and for the reflections of the special education teachers on the approach. Although not a copy of the application screens, this table does nevertheless broadly correspond to how summative progress data are presented to teachers in the AMLO platform.

3.2. Teacher Interviews

All three special education teachers were experienced math teachers with between six and twenty-three years of teaching experience; all had considerable experience in the specialist teaching of mathematics to students with SEN; and all had attended training courses in the effective inclusion of children with DLM.
The interview response data for the three special education teachers in two mainstream schools in Kuwait were analysed and a number of themes were derived. We analysed all the collected data using thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998), employing a modified approach based on Clarke and Braun’s (2016) model. An initial deductive coding frame was developed from the review of literature and the research questions. A sample of data was then analysed using this frame, and additional inductive codes were created. Thus, as the data were re-read, key points in texts were summarized and linked to codes, and new, inductive codes (those emerging directly from the data) were created. Some codes were merged to ensure logical consistency across codes. Some codes were deleted if they were deemed to not include enough data. A coding manual was iteratively developed during this process in which each code was assigned a descriptive meaning. Codes were then axially coded into sub-themes and superordinated overarching themes that are summarized below. The research team also met regularly to review together the emergent code/theme structure during the thematic analysis process. Analytical memos were also used in the coding process by which members of the research team recorded decisions made in relation to coding as well as extant queries, which were brought to the research team meetings for review. All of these are well-recognized approaches to promote the credibility and trustworthiness (Creswell, 2008) of the analysis.
This analysis process led to the following finalized sub-themes and superordinate themes:
Theme (1): The utility of a focus on mathematics learning outcomes for individual children with DLM.
Across the data set, the participating special education teachers all broadly agreed that teaching and learning practices in the two mainstream schools in Kuwait could benefit from a focus on a structured learning outcomes approach, as set out in more detail in the following sub-themes:
Sub-Theme (1a): The utility of a focus on specific learning outcomes
Across the data set, the special education teachers felt, when asked directly about this in the interview, that focusing on individual learning outcomes for children with DLM was useful in terms of developing inclusive practice for this group of children as indicated in the following quotes:
“Yes, I mean considering the individual differences and setting, learning outcomes that suit each learner [should be designed]. Each learning outcome should be divided into a simple strategy such as a tangible educational tool for the weak learner, then a semi tangible tool for the average learner, and an abstract tool for the high-achiever learner”.
And
“Sure, especially for students with learning difficulties in mathematics, and according to the type of learning disabilities since each learner needs a specific learning outcome to solve problems through it. All subjects of mathematics instruction are connected to each other and of course the impact of the teaching method is clear on maths and other subjects since successful teachers are the ones who can solve the problem of their subject and the learner”.
Sub-Theme (1b): Individual tracking and reflection
Broadly, across the data set, the special education teachers felt that individual tracking and reflection were both things that were stimulated by the use of this approach and things that were useful in terms of improving teaching for this group of students with DLM, as indicated in the following quotes:
“Yes, there are problems [for the children] with the sequence of steps in solving complex problems such as subtraction with renaming, and the steps of multiplying three numbers or dividing numbers. Also, understanding real-life problems and solving them, especially those that require more than one mathematical operation in a single problem”.
And
“I found that this is the main aim of teaching those learners and yes it has a positive and effective impact on teachers and students”.
And
“In the beginning of a scholastic year, teachers usually forget about skills which they [ie the children] start to memorize after two weeks approximately of repeating them. Some teachers have a slight memory of skills they acquired last year in addition to developing them through individual lessons.”
These quotes indicate that the process of setting learning outcomes and tracking against these supports their reflection on progress and on how to adapt pedagogy to meet individual needs—for example, the second quote indicated an appreciation of the importance of tracking and of “chunking” sequential cognitive tasks in learning mathematics to aid the assimilation of new knowledge, which may be closely linked to the focus on individual learning outcomes for individual learners with DLM in this study.
Sub-Theme (1c): Adapting pedagogy to individual needs
Across the data set, some of the special education teachers indicated that, when asked directly during the interviews, they had amended their pedagogical approach for individual students based on the reflection on their progress against individualized learning outcomes, as shown in the following quotes. For example, in the following quote, a teacher reflected on the challenges of some of the children with difficulties in learning mathematics with memorizing and implementing times tables and their approach to using various visualization strategies:
“…active learning and adopting different strategies such as visualizing and explaining concepts gradually from simple to complex in fifth-grade curriculum. Thus, there should a distinguish [sic] between them because each learner has a specific ability.”
Theme (2): The potential utility of the AMLO platform.
Sub-Theme (2a): Overall assessment of usability
Broadly, across the data set, the participating special education teachers reported that the AMLO platform was an easy-to-use tool for recording and presenting data. For example:
“It is a platform that is easy [to use in] collecting and saving data for teachers”.
And
“The AMLO platform is excellent if implemented in a set of schools and [it] develops outstanding teachers who apply it and train other teachers through training courses”.
Sub Theme (2b): Utility in promoting reflection on tracking
Overall, across the data set, the special education teachers did not, even when asked directly, significantly differentiate between the overall intervention and its impact on teacher reflection and the technology platform’s role in this per se. However, there were some specific references to this, as in the following quote:
“Yes, it makes it easier for teachers and parents to be aware of his child performance and his progress yearly.”
It may be that the integrated nature of the implementation, whereby the overall structured learning outcomes approach and the AMLO platform were introduced together, led to this lack of differentiation between the two elements by the special education teachers in the sample. However, some responses focused on how the tracking elements could be improved. Thus, participating special education teachers noted areas for development in the AMLO platform, such as specifically adding options for integrating files and sharing reports with parents, to allow for “joint working” between parents and teachers when considering progress for the focus children with DLM in this study.

4. Discussion

Overall, when asked directly, the teachers at both schools that participated in this study felt that the introduction of the AMLO platform supported structured learning outcomes approach, based on their interview responses, prompted them to think more in-depth about the progress that individual children with DLM were making, and to reflect on their pedagogical strategies. At least in some cases, in their perception, they had made decisions about pedagogical strategies to meet individual needs based on their engagement with the process of reviewing individual progress against the stated learning outcomes. Responses also suggested that this was, at least in some cases, something that was new in their practice. The results were less clear in terms of the separate impact of the use of the AMLO platform, which may not perhaps be surprising due to the integrated way that the structured learning outcomes approach and the use of the AMLO platform were introduced as a “joint” intervention in this study.
This study is situated in the broad line of research considering how the process of teacher reflection can improve teaching for children with SEN, particularly DLM. That is, it explores, as Anthony et al. (2015) argued, how if teachers are encouraged and supported to reflect on individual needs, this can lead to more effective pedagogical decision making to meet such needs. Other studies in this area of enquiry have shown how if such reflection can be linked to more fine-grained monitoring of progress, then this can further enhance teachers’ capacity to plan mathematics programs and to promote stronger student mathematics achievement (Fuchs et al., 2008; Spooner et al., 2019; Ketterlin-Geller et al., 2008). Moreover, previous research such as Hibi (2024) and Al Fariana et al. (2024) has shown that effective teaching practices tailored to individual student needs can improve mathematics learning outcomes. Other parallel but cognate studies (Orrill et al., 2023; Mandinach & Schildkamp, 2021) show more broadly the effectiveness of teachers using data as part of their reflective process to inform and tailor instruction.
There are some parallel approaches to a structured learning outcomes approach within K-12 mathematics, particularly the literature on direct instruction and mastery learning (Nelson et al., 2022; Muawanah et al., 2022; Freeman-Green et al., 2018; Hudson et al., 2018; Stockard et al., 2018), which similarly focus on sets of learning outcomes for the whole class, and focus on the close monitoring of progress toward these outcomes. These are very commonly applied in the teaching of compulsory phase mathematics (see, for example, National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics [NCETM], 2022). Yet they are fundamentally whole-class approaches and have been subject to considerable critique in terms of how well they apply to children with learning differences who may find it hard to “keep up” with the class, despite the fact that some advocates suggest that, with appropriate teacher training and use of pedagogy, the vast majority of students with varying ability levels (Tomlinson, 2014) can benefit from these whole-class approaches. However, the structured learning outcomes approach presented here involves, we contend, a much clearer focus on individual needs and responses to individual needs. As we have noted, most of the focus on the use of learning outcomes as an approach to supporting teacher reflection and teacher decision making has been in higher education. Some studies have considered the use of such an approach in compulsory-phase education as discussed in our review of the literature. No studies yet, so far as we are aware, have combined the consideration of such an approach focused on achieving effective differentiation for children with SEN with the support of a tailored technology platform.
Reflecting further on the lack of differentiation by special education teachers between the structured learning outcomes approach and the AMLO platform, it could be argued that this suggests a degree of acceptance or technology integration (Schmitz et al., 2023). In other words, in Ertmer’s terms (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010), it might suggest that there was a degree of pedagogical synergy between the technology and pedagogical aims, as the technology served to support the overall aim of teacher reflection on practice (Anthony et al., 2015), and a concomitant lack of “resistance” to (technology) innovation (Kelchtermans et al., 2009).

5. Conclusions

The aim of this study was to investigate special education teachers’ perceptions of the introduction of the AMLO platform-supported structured learning outcomes approach for fifth-grade mathematics instruction, focusing on students with DLM, across two mainstream schools in Kuwait. What this paper indicates, albeit in a somewhat exploratory manner, is that a focus on a structured learning outcomes approach for elementary-phase mathematics education may help special education teachers in reflecting on the individual needs of students with DLM and in considering how to more effectively differentiate instruction to meet these needs according to students’ individual differences. Most modern educational systems espouse a commitment to inclusion, and as noted above, the system in Kuwait has, in line with international trends (Hernández-Torrano et al., 2022), introduced a raft of policy developments to promote inclusive education. Indeed, some would argue that Kuwait has made relatively strong “progress” in this area compared to a number of other GCC and MENA region countries (UNDP, 2025; Al-Shammari & Mintz, 2022). However, internationally, even with countries such as Kuwait with a strong commitment to the ideas of inclusion in educational practice, there remains uncertainty, across theoretical debates and in terms of policy and practice internationally, about how to most effectively achieve inclusion for learning differences in the classroom (Mintz, 2025; Kirschner et al., 2006). Part of this uncertainty crucially relates to how to balance whole-class learning against individual needs (Pozas et al., 2020). This paper illustrates at least the potential, if not the actuality, of the use of a structured learning outcomes approach in addressing this uncertain area of practice. As such, we essentially argue that the results of this study, which involved a relatively low number of schools, special education teachers, and pupils, show the promise of the approach, based on teacher perceptions. However, further in-depth research is required to explore this potential more fully, and this is the key recommendation of this paper. We recommend, therefore, further research using this structured learning outcomes approach, with a wider sample of students with DLM, in particular, as well as efforts to reduce confounding factors that would allow for a more effective and precise measure of the impact on learning outcomes in the short and long term. Studies evaluating the impact of this approach on student achievement outcomes, utilizing comparison and intervention groupings, could also be considered.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.N.A.-S. and J.M.; methodology, Z.N.A.-S. and J.M.; software, Z.N.A.-S.; data collection Z.N.A.-S., analysis Z.N.A.-S. and J.M., writing—original draft preparation, J.M. and Z.N.A.-S.; writing—review and editing, J.M. and Z.N.A.-S.; funding acquisition, Z.N.A.-S. and J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper reports the findings of research project funded by Kuwait Foundation of for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS) under a research grant agreement (No. CR20-19TM-01), and Kuwait University (KU).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study across the two mainstream schools in Kuwait was granted approval from the Kuwait University ethics committee and relevant approvals from the UCL Institute of Education ethics committee (approval code: KU-CLS-21-11-30, approval date: 1 December 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Relevant parental consents were also obtained.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request due to ethical restrictions.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Maria Kireeva and Caroline Hilton for their assistance with the project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Abbas, Z., Almusawi, H., & Alenezi, N. (2019). The self-perceived knowledge of special education administrators in Kuwait. International Education Studies, 12(5), 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Abdullah, M., Al-Shamali, F., Alkhoja, G., & Halabi, S. (2014). Kuwait education program achievement report: School education quality improvement program (pp. 1–25). No. 93709. Available online: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/530491468090852907 (accessed on 15 November 2024).
  3. Al Fariana, N., Kurniawati, K. R. A., Negara, H. R. P., & Sucipto, L. (2024). Exploration of project-based learning models in the mathematics curriculum to enhance problem-solving skills. International Seminar on Student Research in Education, Science, and Technology, 1, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alkhaldi, F., Abdulwahad, S., Almutairi, S., Mohamad, N., Alenezi, M., Botaiban, A., Almusailaikh, K., Fekri, M., & Naif, A. (2002). Special education report (No. 268). Ministry of Education, Educational Research Department. [Google Scholar]
  5. Alsahli, S., & Al-Shammari, Z. (in press). The graduates’ possession reality of inclusive teacher competencies in elementary teacher preparation program at Kuwait university in teaching students with disabilities in inclusion schools. Journal of Educational Sciences of Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University.
  6. Al-Shammari, Z. (2010a, November 15–17). Connections among curricular components shape that learning outcomes: Analysis and assessment—A perspective from Kuwait. International Conference of Education, Research, and Innovation (ICERI 2010) (pp. 7114–7116), Madrid, Spain. Available online: https://library.iated.org/publications/ICERI2010 (accessed on 15 November 2024).
  7. Al-Shammari, Z. (2010b, May 19–20). Implementation of standards-based, learning outcomes-enhanced student learning and achievement via a designed analysis model for learning outcomes (AMLO) in a teacher education program in Kuwait: A preliminary analysis. WICE–World International Conference on Education 2010—Higher Education in the 21st Century: Challenges and Futurism, Amman, Jordan. [Google Scholar]
  8. Al-Shammari, Z. (2011a, November 14–16). Assessment of student learning outcomes: Indicators of strengths and weaknesses. ICERI 2011 Conference (pp. 4228–4230), Madrid, Spain. [Google Scholar]
  9. Al-Shammari, Z. (2011b, March 7–9). Applications to improve education outcomes by using analysis model for learning outcomes (AMLO): Perspective from Kuwait. INTED2011 Conference (pp. 5721–5724), Madrid, Spain. [Google Scholar]
  10. Al-Shammari, Z. (2012). Using AMLO to improve the quality of teacher education outcomes. Educational Research Quarterly, 36(1), 48–62. [Google Scholar]
  11. Al-Shammari, Z. (2018). Inclusive and special education teachers can improve teaching and learning outcomes using AMLO in Kuwait’s inclusive education schools. In International Conference on Education Quality (ICEQ 2018) Abstract Book (p. 3). Ibn Zohr University. [Google Scholar]
  12. Al-Shammari, Z. (2023). The effectiveness of practicing evidence-based mixed instructional strategies in educating mathematics and its impact on improving SLDs’ learning outcomes in Kuwait. Saudi Journal of Special Education, 27, 203–233. [Google Scholar]
  13. Al-Shammari, Z. (2024a). Special education teachers’ knowledge of the modification process and willingness to implement it in developing the special educational curriculum for students with special educational needs in inclusion schools in Kuwait. Journal of Educational and Psychological Studies, 4(18), 370–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Al-Shammari, Z. (2024b). Special education teachers’ understanding of adaptation and accommodation processes to implement in the education for students with special needs in elementary inclusion schools in Kuwait. Faculty of Education Journal Alexandria University, 34(1), 21–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Al-Shammari, Z., & Hornby, G. (2019). Special education teachers’ knowledge and experience of IEPs in the education of students with special educational needs in Kuwait. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 67(2), 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Al-Shammari, Z., & Mintz, J. (2022). Special education teachers’ understanding and use of evidence-informed practice in the inclusion of children with SEN in Kuwait: Lessons for teacher education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 22, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Al-Shammari, Z., & Yawkey, T. D. (2007). Examining the development and recommendations for special education in the State of Kuwait: An evolving program. Education, 127(4), 534–540. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ang, L. (2014). The early years curriculum: The UK context and beyond. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  19. Anthony, G., Hunter, J., & Hunter, R. (2015). Prospective teachers development of adaptive expertise. Teaching and Teacher Education, 49, 108–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 18(1), 5–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bennett, R. E. (2015). The changing nature of educational assessment. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 370–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bennett, R. E., & Gitomer, D. H. (2009). Transforming K–12 assessment: Integrating accountability testing, formative assessment and professional support. In C. Wyatt-Smith, & J. J. Cumming (Eds.), Educational assessment in the 21st century (pp. 43–61). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bond, C., & Hebron, J. (2016). Developing mainstream resource provision for pupils with autism spectrum disorder: Staff perceptions and satisfaction. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(2), 250–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., Gersten, R. M., Scammacca, N., Funk, C., Winter, A., & Pool, C. (2008). The effects of Tier 2 intervention on the mathematics performance of first-grade students who are at risk for mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(1), 47–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Butterworth, B., Varma, S., & Laurillard, D. (2011). Dyscalculia: From brain to education. Science, 332(6033), 1049–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Cabreros, S. L. (2021). Forty years after the Larry P. decision: School psychologists’ perceptions of the assessment of African American students with specific learning disabilities [Doctoral dissertation, Brandman University]; UMass Global Dissertations. p. 394. Available online: https://digitalcommons.umassglobal.edu/edd_dissertations/394 (accessed on 15 November 2024).
  28. Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2016). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  30. Cunningham, M. (2012). Student learning heterogeneity in school mathematics [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  31. Daniels, H., & Garner, P. (2013). Inclusive education. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  32. Dee, A. L. (2010). Preservice teacher application of differentiated instruction. The Teacher Educator, 46(1), 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Freeman-Green, S., Person, J., & O’Brien, C. (2018). Mathematics instruction for secondary students with learning disabilities in the era of tiered instruction. Insights into Learning Disabilities, 15(2), 175–194. [Google Scholar]
  35. 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(2), 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Prentice, K. (2004). Responsiveness to mathematical problem-solving instruction: Comparing students at risk of mathematics disability with and without risk of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(4), 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fuchs, L. S., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (2010). The effects of strategic counting instruction, with and without deliberate practice, on number combination skill among students with mathematics difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2008). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities or difficulty learning mathematics: A synthesis of the intervention research. RMC Research Corporation; Center on Instruction. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 293–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Güven Akdeniz, D., Yakici Topbas, E. S., & Argün, Z. (2022). Zero in arithmetic operations: A comparison of students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 6(3), 27–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hernández-Torrano, D., Somerton, M., & Helmer, J. (2022). Mapping research on inclusive education since Salamanca Statement: A bibliometric review of the literature over 25 years. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(9), 893–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Herner-Patnode, L., & Lee, H. J. (2021). Differentiated instruction to teach mathematics: Through the lens of responsive teaching. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 23(3), 6–25. Available online: https://mted.merga.net.au/index.php/mted/article/view/658 (accessed on 15 November 2024).
  44. Hibi, W. (2024). Using smart applications to develop mathematical concepts among fourth grade students with arithmetic learning difficulties. The International Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Learning, 32(1), 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hudson, M. E., Rivera, C. J., & Grady, M. M. (2018). Research on mathematics instruction with students with significant cognitive disabilities: Has anything changed? Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 43(1), 38–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. James, D. (2005). Important and impotence? Learning, outcomes and research in further education. The Curriculum Journal, 16(1), 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jitendra, A. K., Rodriguez, M., Kanive, R., Huang, J., Church, C., Conrroy, K. A., & Zaslofsky, A. (2013). Impact of small-group tutoring interventions on the mathematical problem solving and achievement of third-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kelchtermans, G., Ballet, K., & Piot, L. (2009). Surviving diversity in times of performativity: Understanding teachers’ emotional experience of change. In P. A. Schutz, & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research (pp. 157–171). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Chard, D. J., & Fien, H. (2008). Making connections in mathematics: Conceptual mathematics intervention for low-performing students. Remedial and Special Education, 29(1), 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kivirähk-Koor, T., & Kiive, E. (2025). Differences in cognitive and mathematical skills of students with a mathematical learning disability and those with low achievement in mathematics: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 15(3), 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kuwait Al Youm. (2010). Law No. 8 of 2010 concerning rights of people with disabilities. Available online: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.detail?p_lang=en&p_isn=89501 (accessed on 15 November 2024).
  53. Kuwait Ministry of Education (KMoE). (n.d.). Number of students in the State of Kuwait. Available online: https://eservices.moe.edu.kw/app/dashboard/dashboard_sis.xhtm1 (accessed on 15 November 2024).
  54. Kuwait Ministry of Education (KMoE). (2016). Kuwait national curriculum: Intermediate education, curriculum and standards math. KMoE Educational Curricula Sector. [Google Scholar]
  55. Maccini, P., & Hughes, C. A. (2000). Effects of a problem-solving strategy on the introductory algebra performance of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15(1), 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mancl, D. B., Miller, S. P., & Kennedy, M. (2012). Using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence with integrated strategy instruction to teach subtraction with regrouping to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 27, 152–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mandinach, E. B., & Schildkamp, K. (2021). Misconceptions about data-based decision making in education: An exploration of the literature. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 69, 100842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Manizade, A. G., Buchholtz, N., & Beswick, K. (2022). The evolution of research on teaching mathematics: International perspectives in the digital era: Introduction. In A. G. Manizade, N. Buchholtz, & K. Beswick (Eds.), The evolution of research on teaching mathematics: International perspectives in the digital era (pp. 1–18). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  59. Mercer, C. D., Jordan, L., & Miller, S. P. (1994). Implications of constructivism for teaching math to students with moderate to mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 290–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mintz, J. (2025). Liberal perspectives on inclusion: Enlightenment values and debates on equity and democracy in the classroom. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  61. Mintz, J., Hick, P., Solomon, Y., Matziari, A., Ó’Murchú, F., Hall, K., Cahill, K., Curtin, C., Anders, J., & Margariti, D. (2020). The reality of reality shock for inclusion: How does teacher attitude, perceived knowledge and self-efficacy in relation to effective inclusion in the classroom change from the pre-service to novice teacher year? Teaching and Teacher Education, 91, 103042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mintz, J., & Wyse, D. (2015). Inclusive pedagogy and knowledge in special education: Addressing the tension. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(11), 1161–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mononen, R., Niemivirta, M., & Korhonen, J. (2022). Predicting mathematical learning difficulties status: The role of domain-specific and domain-general skills. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 14(3), 335–352. Available online: https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/1731 (accessed on 15 November 2024). [CrossRef]
  64. Muawanah, F., Arianto, B., Astuti, D., & Razzokov, K. K. (2022). Direct learning model to improve students’ mathematics learning outcomes: A classroom action research. Bulletin of Science Education, 2(1), 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics (NCETM). (2022). The essence of mathematics teaching for mastery. Available online: https://www.ncetm.org.uk/teaching-for-mastery/mastery-explained/the-essence-of-mathematics-teaching-for-mastery/ (accessed on 15 November 2024).
  66. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2007). Effective strategies for teaching students with difficulties in mathematics and what are the characteristics of students with learning difficulties in mathematics? Available online: https://www.nctm.org (accessed on 15 November 2024).
  67. Nelson, G., Crawford, A., Hunt, J., Park, S., Leckie, E., Duarte, A., Brafford, T., Ramos-Duke, M., & Zarate, K. (2022). A systematic review of research syntheses on students with mathematics learning disabilities and difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 37(1), 18–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Norwich, B. (2013). Addressing tensions and dilemmas in inclusive education: Living with uncertainty. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  69. Norwich, B., Ylonen, A., & Gwernan-Jones, R. (2012). Moderate learning difficulties: Searching for clarity and understanding. Research Papers in Education, 29(1), 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ochoa, T. A., Erden, E., Alhajeri, O., Hurley, E., Lee, K., Ogle, L., & Wang, T. (2017). Disability laws and special education provisions in China, Kuwait, South Korea, Turkey, and the United States. International Journal of Special Education, 32(2), 325–354. [Google Scholar]
  71. Orrill, C. H., Gearty, Z., & Wang, K. (2023). Continuing evolution of research on teaching and learning: Exploring emerging methods for unpacking research on teachers, teaching, and learning. In A. G. Manizade, N. Buchholtz, & K. Beswick (Eds.), The evolution of research on teaching mathematics: International perspectives in the digital era (pp. 339–377). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pozas, M., Letzel, V., & Schneider, C. (2020). Teachers and differentiated instruction: Exploring differentiation practices to address student diversity. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 20(3), 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rowntree, D. (2015). Assessing students: How shall we know them? Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  74. Sayeski, K. L., & Paulsen, K. J. (2010). Mathematics reform curricula and special education: Identifying intersections and implications for practice. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Scanlon, D. (2012). Specific learning disability and its newest definition: Which is comprehensive? And which is insufficient? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(1), 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Schmitz, M. L., Antonietti, C., Consoli, T., Cattaneo, A., Gonon, P., & Petko, D. (2023). Transformational leadership for technology integration in schools: Empowering teachers to use technology in a more demanding way. Computers and Education, 204, 104880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Schoepp, K. (2019). The state of course learning outcomes at leading universities. Studies in Higher Education, 44(4), 615–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Shemshack, A., & Spector, J. M. (2020). A systematic literature review of personalized learning terms. Smart Learning Environments, 7, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Spooner, F., Root, J. R., Saunders, A. F., & Browder, D. M. (2019). An updated evidence-based practice review on teaching mathematics to students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 40(3), 150–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Swanson, H. L., Moran, A., Lussier, C., & Fung, W. (2014). The effect of explicit and direct generative strategy training and working memory on word problem-solving accuracy in children at risk for math difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Taguinod, A. M., & Ching, D. (2023). Effectiveness of team assisted individualization as a teaching approach. International Journal of Educational Management and Development Studies, 4(4), 216–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). [Google Scholar]
  84. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2025). Disability rights at the heart of an inclusive Kuwait. UNDP. Available online: https://www.undp.org/kuwait/blog/disability-rights-heart-inclusive-kuwait (accessed on 15 November 2024).
  85. Van Geel, M., Keuning, T., Frèrejean, J., Dolmans, D., van Merriënboer, J., & Visscher, A. J. (2019). Capturing the complexity of differentiated instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 30(1), 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Weber, A. S., & City, E. (2012). Inclusive education in the gulf cooperation council. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 2(2), 85–97. [Google Scholar]
  87. Witzel, B. S. (2005). Using CRA to teach algebra to students with math difficulties in inclusive settings. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3(2), 53–64. [Google Scholar]
  88. Witzel, B. S., Smith, S. W., & Brownell, B. T. (2001). How can I help students with learning disabilities in algebra? Intervention in School and Clinic, 37, 101–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. 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(3), 181–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zhang, S., Yu, S., Xiao, J., Liu, Y., & Jiang, T. (2021). The effects of concrete-representational-abstract sequence instruction on fractions for Chinese elementary students with mathematics learning disabilities. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20, 1481–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Number of special education teachers and students with DLMs in two mainstream schools.
Table 1. Number of special education teachers and students with DLMs in two mainstream schools.
SchoolsTeachersFocus Students with DLM
KS1KS1T18
KS2KS2T111
KS2T311
Note: KS1 = Kuwait School 1; KS2 = Kuwait School 2.
Table 2. Analysis of data collected for three mathematics instruction subjects from three classrooms in two mainstream schools in Kuwait.
Table 2. Analysis of data collected for three mathematics instruction subjects from three classrooms in two mainstream schools in Kuwait.
SchoolsClassroomsStudents with DLMFifth-Grade Curriculum-Based Mathematics InstructionFinal Test Score
Mathematics
Instruction-1		Mathematics
Instruction-2		Mathematics
Instruction-3
KS1KS1T11100100100100%
210080060%
31007010090%
41004010080%
5100100100100%
61006010086.66%
7100100100100%
8100100100100%
Average 100%81.5%87.5%90%
KS2KS1T21100100100100%
20100033.33%
3100100100100%
4010010066.6%
5100100100100%
61002010073.33%
7100100100100%
8100100100100%
9100100100100%
10100100100100%
11100100100100%
Average 81.5%92.7%90.9%90.9%
KS2T31100100100100%
2100100100100%
3100100100100%
4100100100100%
51002010073.33%
6100100100 100%
7100100100100%
8100100100100%
91002010073.33%
10100100100100%
11100100100100%
Average 100%85.45%100%100%
Overall Average 94%87%93%91%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Al-Shammari, Z.N.; Mintz, J. Perspectives on Employing a Structured Fifth-Grade Mathematics Curriculum Based on a Learning Outcomes Model with Students with Special Educational Needs in Kuwait Mainstream Schools. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 896. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070896

AMA Style

Al-Shammari ZN, Mintz J. Perspectives on Employing a Structured Fifth-Grade Mathematics Curriculum Based on a Learning Outcomes Model with Students with Special Educational Needs in Kuwait Mainstream Schools. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(7):896. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070896

Chicago/Turabian Style

Al-Shammari, Zaid N., and Joseph Mintz. 2025. "Perspectives on Employing a Structured Fifth-Grade Mathematics Curriculum Based on a Learning Outcomes Model with Students with Special Educational Needs in Kuwait Mainstream Schools" Education Sciences 15, no. 7: 896. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070896

APA Style

Al-Shammari, Z. N., & Mintz, J. (2025). Perspectives on Employing a Structured Fifth-Grade Mathematics Curriculum Based on a Learning Outcomes Model with Students with Special Educational Needs in Kuwait Mainstream Schools. Education Sciences, 15(7), 896. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070896

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop