Effects of Interventions Using Virtual Manipulatives for Students With Learning Disabilities: A Synthesis of Single-Case Research

Abstract

Virtual manipulatives are interactive and dynamic visual objects on a screen, which allow students to manipulate them to construct mathematical knowledge. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the literature on interventions that used virtual manipulatives to improve the mathematics performance of K–12 students with learning disabilities. A total of 19 single-case design studies (16 peer-reviewed articles and three dissertations) were selected using specific selection criteria. Overall, students with learning disabilities demonstrated mathematical improvement after receiving interventions involving virtual manipulatives. Although many students with learning disabilities maintained and generalized the intervention effects, further research is required to verify the current findings.

Keywords

virtual manipulatives learning disabilities synthesis mathematics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agrawal

Morin

L. L.

(2016). Evidence-based practices: Applications of concrete representational abstract framework across math concepts for students with disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(1), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12093

Berch

D. B.

Mazzocco

M. M. M.

(Eds.). (2007). Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities. Brookes.

*Bouck

E. C.

Bassette

Shurr

Park

Kerr

Whorley

(2017). Teaching equivalent fractions to secondary students with disabilities via the virtual–representational–abstract instructional sequence. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32(4), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643417727291

*Bouck

E. C.

Chamberlain

Park

(2017). Concrete and app-based manipulatives to support students with disabilities with subtraction. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 52(3), 317–331. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26420403

Bouck

E. C.

Flanagan

(2009). Assistive technology and mathematics: What is there and where can we do in special education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(2), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340902400202

Bouck

E. C.

Park

(2018). A systematic review of the literature on mathematics manipulatives to support students with disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 41(1), 65–106. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2018.0003

*Bouck

E. C.

Park

(2020). App-based manipulatives and the system of least prompts to support acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of adding integers. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 55(2), 158–172.

*Bouck

E. C.

Park

Cwiakala

Whorley

(2020). Learning fraction concepts through the virtual-abstract instructional sequence. Journal of Behavioral Education, 29(3), 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-019-09334-9

*Bouck

E. C.

Park

Levy

Cwiakala

Whorley

(2020). App-based manipulatives and explicit instruction to support division with remainders. Exceptionality, 28(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2019.1586709

10.

*Bouck

E. C.

Park

Satsangi

Cwiakala

Levy

(2019). Using the virtual-abstract instructional sequence to support acquisition of algebra. Journal of Special Education Technology, 34(4), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419833022

11.

*Bouck

E. C.

Park

Shurr

(2019). Using the virtual-representational instructional sequence to support the acquisition and maintenance of mathematics for students with intellectual disability. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2019.1640999

12.

*Bouck

E. C.

Park

Stenzel

(2020). Virtual manipulatives as assistive technology to support students with disabilities with mathematics. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 64(4), 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2020.1762157

13.

Bouck

E. C.

Satsangi

Park

(2018). The concrete-representational-abstract approach for students with learning disabilities: An evidence-based practice synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 39(4), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517721712

14.

*Bouck

E. C.

Shurr

Bassette

Park

Whorley

(2018). Adding it up: Comparing concrete and app-based manipulatives to support students with disabilities with adding fractions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33(3), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643418759341

15.

Bouck

E. C.

Working

Bone

(2018). Manipulative apps to support students with disabilities in mathematics. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(3), 177–182. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/10.1177/1053451217702115

16.

Bruner

J. S.

(1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 1–15.

17.

Clements

D. H.

Sarama

DiBiase

A.-M.

(Eds.). (2004). Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics. Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Cook

Buysse

Klingner

Landrum

McWilliam

Tankersley

Test

(2014). Council for Exceptional Children: Standards for evidence-based practices in special education. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46(6), 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914531389

19.

Fuchs

L. S.

Geary

D. C.

Compton

D. L.

Fuchs

Hamlett

C. L.

Seethaler

P. M.

Bryant

J. D.

Schatschneider

(2010). Do different types of school mathematics development depend on different constellations of numerical versus general cognitive abilities? Developmental Psychology, 46(6), 1731–1746. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020662

20.

Geary

D. C.

(2011). Consequences, characteristics, and causes of mathematical learning disabilities and persistent low achievement in mathematics. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 32(3), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e318209edef

21.

Geary

D. C.

Hoard

M. K.

Nugent

Bailey

D. H.

(2012). Mathematical cognition deficits in children with learning disabilities and persistent low achievement: A five-year prospective study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025398

22.

Gersten

Beckmann

Clarke

Foegen

Marsh

Star

J. R.

Witzel

(2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle Schools (NCEE 2009-4060). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

23.

Goldin

Shteingold

(2001). Systems of representations and the development of mathematical concepts. In Curcio

F. R.

(Ed.), The roles of representation in school mathematics: 2001 yearbook (pp. 1–23). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

24.

*Hammer

(2018). Virtual manipulatives with technology-based graphic organizers (VM + TBGO): A combined mathematics intervention to support secondary students with learning disabilities to solve proportion word problems (Publication No. 13420380) [Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

25.

Jitendra

A. K.

Nelson

Pulles

S. M.

Kiss

A. J.

Houseworth

(2016). Is mathematical representation of problems an evidence-based strategy for students with mathematics difficulties? Exceptional Children, 83(1), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915625062

26.

Judge

Watson

S. R.

(2011). Longitudinal outcomes for mathematics achievement for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Research, 104(3), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671003636729

27.

Kiru

E. W.

Doabler

C. T.

Sorrells

A. M.

Cooc

N. A.

(2018). A synthesis of technology-mediated mathematics interventions for students with or at risk for mathematics learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33(2), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643417745835

28.

Lafay

Osana

H. P.

Valat

(2019). Effects of interventions with manipulatives on immediate learning, maintenance, and transfer in children with mathematics learning disabilities: A systematic review. Education Research International, 2019, 2142948. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2142948

29.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

D. G

., & the PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), Article e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

30.

Morgan

P. L.

Farkas

Hillemeier

M. M.

Maczuga

(2016). Who is at risk for persistent mathematics difficulties in the United States? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(3), 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414553849

31.

Moyer-Packenham

P. S.

Bolyard

J. J.

(2016). Revisiting the definition of a virtual manipulative. In Moyer-Packenham

P. S.

(Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with virtual manipulatives (pp. 3–23). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32718-1

32.

Moyer-Packenham

P. S.

Suh

(2012). Learning mathematics with technology: The influence of virtual manipulatives on different achievement groups. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 31(1), 39–59. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/37643

33.

Moyer-Packenham

P. S.

Ulmer

L. A.

Anderson

K. L.

(2012). Examining pictorial models and virtual manipulatives for third-grade fraction instruction. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(3), 103–120. http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v11/n3/examining-pictorial-models-and-virtual-manipulatives-for-third-grade-fraction-instruction.html

34.

Moyer-Packenham

P. S.

Westenskow

(2013). Effects of virtual manipulatives on student achievement and mathematics learning. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 4(3), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.4018/jvple.2013070103

35.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.

36.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all.

37.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. http://www.corestandards.org/Math

38.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf

39.

M. W.

(2018). Use of iPads as assistive technology for students with disabilities. Techtrends, 62(1), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0199-8

40.

M. W.

Bryant

D. P.

Bryant

B. R.

(2020). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on the mathematics performance of students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the research. Exceptionality, 28(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2019.1579723

41.

M. W.

Kim

(2017). Use of iPads and iPods for academic performance and engagement of preK-12 students with disabilities: A research synthesis. Exceptionality, 25(1), 54–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2016.1196446

42.

*Park

Bouck

E. C.

Fisher

M. H.

(2021). Using the virtual–representational–abstract with overlearning instructional sequence to students with disabilities in mathematics. The Journal of Special Education, 54(4), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920912527

43.

Parker

R. I.

Vannest

K. J.

Davis

J. L.

Sauber

S. B.

(2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006

44.

Peltier

Morin

K. L.

Bouck

E. C.

Lingo

M. E.

Pulos

J. M.

Scheffler

F. A.

Suk

Mathews

L. A.

Sinclair

T. E.

Deardorff

M. E.

(2020). A meta-analysis of single-case research using mathematics manipulatives with students at risk or identified with a disability. The Journal of Special Education, 54(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466919844516

45.

Powell

S. R.

Fluhler

S. K.

(2020). A brief measure of mathematics symbols: Performance at grades 1, 3, and 5. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 45(4), 266–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508418809884

46.

Reimer

Moyer-Packenham

P. S.

(2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics & Science Teaching, 24(1), 5–25. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/teal_facpub/40

47.

*Reneau

J. L.

(2013). Using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence to connect manipulatives, problem solving schemas, and equations in word problems with fractions (Publication No. 3530320) [Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

48.

Rohatgi

(2020). WebPlotDigitizer (Version 4.3) [Web-based application]. https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer

49.

Sargent

J. F.

(2017). The U.S. science and engineering workforce: Recent, current, and projected employment, wages, and unemployment. Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf

50.

*Satsangi

Bouck

E. C.

(2015). Using virtual manipulative instruction to teach the concepts of area and perimeter to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(3), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714550101

51.

*Satsangi

Bouck

E. C.

Taber-Doughty

Bofferding

Roberts

C. A.

(2016). Comparing the effectiveness of virtual and concrete manipulatives to teach algebra to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(4), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948716649754

52.

*Satsangi

Hammer

Evmenova

A. S.

(2018). Teaching multistep equations with virtual manipulatives to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12166

53.

*Satsangi

Hammer

Hogan

C. D.

(2018). Studying virtual manipulatives paired with explicit instruction to teach algebraic equations to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(4), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718769248

54.

Sayeski

K. L.

(2008). Virtual manipulatives as an assistive technology support for students with high-incidence disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340802300104

55.

Serianni

B. A.

(2014). Supporting middle school students with emotional or behavioral disorders in blended learning: A fraction intervention using virtual manipulatives (Publication No. 4723) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

56.

Shalev

R. S.

Auerbach

Manor

Gross-Tsur

(2000). Developmental dyscalculia: Prevalence and prognosis. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 9(2), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007870070009

57.

Shalev

R. S.

von Aster

(2008). Identification, classification, and prevalence of developmental dyscalculia. Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy Development. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-12874

58.

*Shin

Bryant

D. P.

(2017). Improving the fraction word problem solving of students with mathematics learning disabilities: Interactive computer application. Remedial and Special Education, 38(2), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516669052

59.

Shin

Bryant

D. P.

Bryant

B. R.

McKenna

J. W.

Hou

M. W.

(2017). Virtual manipulatives: Tools for teaching mathematics to students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(3), 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216644830

60.

*Simsek

(2016). Use of a game-based app as a learning tool for students with mathematics learning disabilities to increase fraction knowledge/skill (Publication No. 10145359) [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

61.

Snyder

T. D.

de Brey

Dillow

S. A.

(2019). Digest of education statistics 2018 (NCES 2020-009). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

62.

Stevens

J. J.

Schulte

A. C.

(2017). The interaction of learning disability status and student demographic characteristics on mathematics growth. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(3), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415618496

63.

Stultz

(2017). Computer-assisted mathematics instruction for students with specific learning disability: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32(4), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643417725881

64.

Suh

J. M.

Moyer-Packenham

P. S.

(2008). Scaffolding special needs students’ learning of fraction equivalence using virtual manipulatives. In Figueras

Cortina

J. L.

Alatorre

Rojano

Sepulveda

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 297–304). http://mason.gmu.edu/~jsuh4/tenure/part4thru8/papers/RR.PME32.pdf

65.

Vannest

K. J.

Ninci

(2015). Evaluating intervention effects in single-case research designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(4), 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12038

66.

Vannest

K. J.

Parker

R. I.

Gonen

Adiguzel

(2016). Single case research: Web based calculators for SCR analysis (Version 2.0) [Web-based application]. Texas A&M University. http://www.singlecaseresearch.org/

67.

Vorderman

Porkess

Budd

Dunne

Rahman-Hart

(2011). A world-class mathematics education for all our young people. Conservative Party.

68.

Woodward

Beckmann

Driscoll

Franke

Herzig

Jitendra

Koedinger

K. R.

Ogbuehi

(2012). Improving mathematical problem solving in grades 4 through 8: A practice guide (NCEE 2012-4055). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

69.

Woodward

Carnine

(1993). Uses of technology for mathematics assessment and instruction: Reflection on a decade of innovations. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(1), 38–48.

70.

*Xin

Y. P.

Park

J. Y.

Tzur

(2020). The impact of a conceptual model-based mathematics computer tutor on multiplicative reasoning and problem-solving of students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 58, 100762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2020.100762

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.17 MB