According to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, geometry and spatial sense are fundamental components of mathematics learning. However, learning disabilities (LD) research has shown that many K–12 students encounter particular geometry difficulties (GD). This study examined the effect of an integrated object representation (IOR) accommodation on the test performance of students with GD compared to students without GD. Participants were 118 elementary students who took a researcher-developed geometry problem solving test under both a standard testing condition and an IOR accommodation condition. A total of 36 students who were classified with GD scored below 40% correct in the geometry problem solving test in the standard testing condition, and 82 students who were classified without GD scored equal to or above 40% correct in the same test and condition. All students were tested in both standard testing condition and IOR accommodation condition. The results from both ANOVA and regression discontinuity (RD) analyses suggested that students with GD benefited more than students without GD from the IOR accommodation. Implications of the study are discussed in terms of providing accommodations for students with mathematics learning difficulties and recommending RD design in LD research.
AbediJ.HofstetterC. H.LordC. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 1–28.
2.
AikenL. S.WestS. G.SchwalmD. E.CarrollJ.HsuingS. (1998). Comparison of a randomized and two quasi-experimental designs in a single outcome evaluation: Efficacy of a university-level remedial writing program. Evaluation Review, 22(4), 207–244.
3.
BaddeleyA. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews, 4, 829–839.
4.
BouckE. C. (2010). Does type matter: Evaluating the effectiveness of four-function and graphing calculators. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29, 5–18.
5.
BouckE. C.BouckM. K. (2008). Does it add up? Calculator use by middle school students with and without disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(2), 17–32.
6.
BouckE. C.YadavA. (2008). Accessing calculators as assessment accommodations for students with disabilities. Assistive Technology: Outcomes and Benefits, 5, 19–28.
7.
CalhoonM. B.FuchsL. S.HamlettC. L. (2000). Effects of computer-based test accommodations on mathematics performance assessments for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 271–282.
8.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In GageN. L. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
9.
CohenA. S.GreggN.DengM. (2005). The role of extended time and item content on a high-stakes mathematics test. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(4), 225–233.
10.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Common Core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
11.
CookT. D. (2008). “Waiting for life to arrive”: A history of the regression-discontinuity design in psychology, statistics and economics. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 636–654.
12.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
13.
CrowleyM. L. (1987). The van Hiele model of the development of geometric thought. In LindquistM. M. (Ed.), Learning and teaching geometry, K–12 (pp. 1–16). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
14.
DehaeneS.CohenL. (1995). Towards an anatomical and functional model of number processing. Mathematical Cognition, 1, 83–120.
15.
ElbaumB. (2007). Effects of an oral testing accommodation on the mathematics performance of secondary students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 40(4), 218–229.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1999). Fair and unfair testing accommodations. School Administrator, 56(10), 24–27, 29.
18.
FuchsL. S.PowellS. R.SeethalerP. M.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.CirinoP. T.FletcherJ. M. (2010). A framework for remediating number combination deficits. Exceptional Children, 76(2), 135–156.
19.
GalH.LinchevskiL. (2010). To see or not to see: Analyzing difficulties in geometry from the perspective of visual perception. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 163–183.
GearyD. C. (1996). Sexual selection and sex differences in mathematical abilities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 229–284.
22.
GearyD. C. (2003). Learning disabilities in arithmetic: Problem solving differences and cognitive deficits. In SwansonH. L.HarrisK.GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 199–212). New York, NY: Guilford.
23.
GearyD. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 4–15.
24.
GearyD. C.HoardM. K. (2005). Learning disabilities in arithmetic and mathematics: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In CampbellJ. I. D. (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 253–267). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
25.
GearyD. C.HoardM. K.Byrd-CravenJ.NugentL.NumteeC. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development, 78, 1343–1359.
26.
GerstenR.ChardD. J.JayanthiM.BakerS. K.MorthyP.FlojoJ. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional component. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202–1242.
27.
GonzalesP.GuzmanJ. C.PartelowL.PahlkeE.JocelynL.KastbergD.WilliamsT. (2004). Highlights from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 2003 (NCES 2005–005). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
28.
GreenS. B.SalkindN. J. (2011). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29.
GreggN.NelsonJ. M. (2012). Meta-analysis on the effectiveness of extra time as a test accommodation for transitioning adolescents with learning disabilities: More questions than answers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(2), 128–138.
30.
HelwigR.Rozek-TedescoM. A.TindalG. (2002). An oral versus a standard administration of a large-scale mathematics test. Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 39–47.
31.
HelwigR.TindalG. (2003). An experimental analysis of accommodation decisions on large-scale mathematics tests. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 211–225.
32.
HuckS. W.McLeanR. A. (1975). Using a repeated measures ANOVA to analyze the data from a pretest-posttest design: A potentially confusing task. Psychological Bulletin, 82(4), 511–518.
33.
HumphreyG. (1924). The psychology of the gestalt. Journal of Educational Psychology, 15(7), 401–412.
34.
ImbensG.LemieuxT. (2010). Regression discontinuity designs: A guide to practice. Journal of Economic Literature, 48, 281–355.
35.
JeungH.ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329–343.
36.
JohnsonE. S. (2000). The effects of accommodations on performance assessments. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 261–267.
37.
LeeH. B. (2008). Using the Chow test to analyze regression discontinuities. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 46–50.
38.
LesikS. A. (2006). Applying the regression-discontinuity design to infer causality with non-random assignment. Review of Higher Education, 30(1), 1–19.
39.
LuckS.VogelE. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390, 279–281.
40.
LuytenH. (2006). An empirical assessment of the absolute effect of schooling: Regression-discontinuity applied to TIMSS-95. Oxford Review of Education, 32(3), 397–429.
41.
LuytenH.PescharJ.CoeR. (2008). Effects of schooling on reading performance, reading engagement, and reading activities of 15-year-olds in England. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 319-342. doi:10.3102/0002831207313345
42.
MarshH. W. (1998). Simulation study of nonequivalent group-matching and regression-discontinuity designs: Evaluations of gifted and talented programs. Journal of Experimental Education, 66(2), 163–192.
43.
MaxwellS. E.DelaneyH. D.DillC. A. (1984). Another look at ANCOVA versus blocking. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 136–147.
44.
McLeanJ.HitchG. (1999). Working memory impairment in children with specific arithmetic learning difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74, 240–260.
MossB. G.YeatonW. H. (2006). Shaping policies related to developmental education: An evaluation using the regression-discontinuity design. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(3), 215–229.
47.
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2006). Dyscalculia. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org
48.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
49.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundation for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
50.
NewmanF. W. (2005). The difficulties of elementary geometry, especially those which concern the straight line, the plane, and the theory of parallels. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library. (Original work published 1841). Retrieved from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/u/umhistmath/ACR9030.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext
51.
PomplunM.OmarM. H. (2000). Score comparability of a state mathematics assessment across students with and without reading accommodations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 21–29.
52.
PorterA.McMakenJ.HwangJ.YangR. (2011). Common Core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–117.
53.
ProvasnikS.KastbergD.FerraroD.LemanskiN.RoeyS.JenkinsF. (2012). Highlights from Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2011: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2013–009). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
54.
PurcellA.GeroJ. (1998). Drawings and the design process. Design Studies, 19, 389–430.
55.
RobinsonJ. P. (2010). The effects of test translation on young English learners’ mathematics performance. Educational Researcher, 39(8), 582–590.
56.
SaadsS.DavisG. (1997). Spatial abilities, van Hiele levels and language use in three dimensional geometry. In PekonenE. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 104–111). Helsinki, Finland: Lahti Research and Training Center, University of Helsinki.
57.
SchochetP. Z. (2009). Statistical power for regression discontinuity designs in education evaluations. Journal of Educational And Behavioral Statistics, 34(2), 238–266. doi:10.3102/1076998609332748.
58.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
59.
SireciS. G.ScarpatiS. E.LiS. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 457–490.
60.
ThistlethwaiteD. L.CampbellD. T. (1960). Regression-discontinuity analysis: An alternative to the ex-post facto experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 309–317.
61.
ThurlowM. L.LazarusS. S.ThompsonS. J.MorseA. B. (2005). State policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 232–240.
62.
TriadafillidisT. A. (1995). Circumventing visual limitations in teaching the geometry of shapes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(3), 225–235.
63.
TrochimW. M. K. (1984). Research design for program evaluation: The regression-discontinuity approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
64.
van HieleP. (1959). The child’s thought and geometry. Brooklyn: City University of New York.
65.
VerstijnenL.van LeeuwenC.GoldschmidtG.HamelR.HennesseyJ. (1998). Creative discovery in imagery and perception: Combing is relatively easy, restructuring takes a sketch. Acta Psychologica, 99, 177–200.
66.
WongV. C.SteinerP. M.CookT. D. (2013). Analyzing regression-discontinuity designs with multiple assignment variables a comparative study of four estimation methods. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38(2), 107–141.
67.
WongW.-K.HsuS.-C.WuS.-H.LeeC.-W.HsuW.-L. (2007). LIM-G: Learner-initiating instruction model based on cognitive knowledge for geometry word problem comprehension. Computers & Education, 48, 582–601.
68.
XuY. (2000). Object parts in visual short-term memory and visual search (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
69.
XuY.NakayamaK. (2003). Placing objects at different depths increases visual short-term memory capacity [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 3, 27.
70.
ZhangD.DingY.StegallJ.MoL. (2012). The effects of visual chunking on improving visual imagery skills for solving geometry problems in students with math disabilities. Learning Disability Research and Practice, 27, 167–177.
71.
ZuckermanI. H.LeeE.WutohA. K.XueZ.StuartB. (2006). Application of regression-discontinuity analysis in pharmaceutical health services research. Health Services Research, 41, 550–563.
