A multiple baseline design was employed to test the effect of manipulative instruction on the perimeter and area problem–solving performance of middle and high school students who had been diagnosed with LD in the area of mathematics. Modeling, prompting/guided practice, and independent practice in conjunction with manipulative training were employed to teach both perimeter and area problem–solving skills. Analysis of data revealed that the students rapidly acquired the problem–solving–skills, maintained these skills over a two–month period, and transferred these skills to a paper and pencil problem–solving format. This research extends previous findings by revealing that use of concrete manipulatives promotes the long–term maintenance of skills.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlgozzineB., O'SheaD. J., CrewsW. B., & StoddardK. (1987). Analysis of mathematics competence of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Special Education, 21, 97–107.
2.
BrianT., BayM., Lopez–ReynaN., & DonahueM. (1991). Characteristics of students with learning disabilities: A summary of the extant database and its implications for educational programs. In LloydJ. W., NirbhayN., & ReppA. C. (eds.), The regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. 113–131). Sycamore, IL : Sycamore.
3.
CawleyJ. F., & MillerJ. H. (1989). Cross–sectional comparisons of the mathematical performance of children with learning disabilities: Are we on the right track toward comprehensive programming?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 250–259.
4.
ChapinS., IllingworthM., LanduaM. S., MasingilaJ., & McCrackenL. (1997). Middle grades math: Tools for success. Needham, MA : Prentice–Hall.
FunkhouserC. (1995). Developing number sense and basic computational skills in students with special needs. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 236–239.
8.
HooverH. D., HieronymusA. N., FrisbieD. A., & DunbarS. B. (1993). Iowa tests of basic skills. Chicago, IL : Riverside Publishing Company.
9.
HuntingtonD. J. (1994). Instruction in concrete, semi–concrete, and abstract representation as an aid to the solution of relational problems by adolescents with learning disabilities. Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1994. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56/02, 512.
10.
JordanL., MillerD. M., & MercerC. D. (1998). The effects of concrete to semi concrete to abstract instruction in the acquisition and retention of fraction concepts and skills. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(3), 115–122.
11.
KavaleK. A., & ReeseJ. H. (1992). The character of learning disabilities: An Iowa profile. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 74–94.
12.
LernerJ. (2003). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (9th ed.). Boston, MA : Houghton Mifflin Company.
13.
MacciniP., & GagnonJ. C. (2000). Best practices for teaching mathematics to secondary students with special needs. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(5), 1–21.
14.
MacciniP., & HughesC. A. (2000). Effects of a problem solving strategy on the introductory algebra performance of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(1), 10–21.
15.
MacciniP., & RuhlK. L. (2000). Effects of a graduated instructional sequence on the algebraic subtraction of integers by secondary students with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 465–489.
16.
MarshL. G., & CookeN. L. (1996). The effects of using manipulatives in teaching math problem solving to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11(1), 58–65.
17.
MercerC. D., & MillerS. P. (1992). Teaching students with learning problems in math to acquire, understand, and apply basic math facts. Remedial and Special Education, 13(3), 19–35, 61.
18.
MillerS. P., HarrisC., StrawserS., JonesW. P., & MercerC. (1998). Teaching multiplication to second graders in inclusive settings. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 20, 50–70.
19.
MillerS., & MercerC. (1997). Education aspects of mathematics disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(1), 47–56.
20.
MillerS. P., MercerC. D., & DillonA. (1992). Acquiring and retaining math skills. Intervention, 28, 105–110.
21.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Third international mathematics and science study (Report No. NCES–97–582; ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED401127). Washington, DC : National Center for Education Statistics.
22.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA : National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
23.
PattonJ., CroninM., BassettD., & KoppelA. (1997). A life skills approach to mathematics instruction: Preparing students with learning disabilities for real–life math demands of adulthood. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 178–187.
24.
PetersonS. K., MercerC. D., & O'SheaL. (1988). Teaching learning disabled students place value using the concrete to abstract sequence. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 52–56.
25.
ShalevR., ManorO., AuerbachJ., & Grodd–TourV. (1998). Persistence of developmental dyscalculia: What counts. Journal of Pediatrics, 133(3), 358–362.
26.
TawneyJ., & GastD. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH : Merrill.
27.
WechslerD. (1974). Wechsler intelligence scale for children–revised. San Antonio, TX : Psychological Corporation.
28.
WitzelB. S. (2001). Multisensory algebra through concrete to representational to abstract instruction for middle school students with learning difficulties. Dissertation Abstracts International63/01, 141.
29.
WoodcockR. W., & JohnsonM. B. (1999). Woodcock–Johnson psycho–educational battery–revised, tests of achievement. Itasca, IL : Riverside.
