This study investigated the effectiveness of virtual manipulatives within explicit instruction to improve verbal math problem-solving in students with intellectual disabilities. Using a multiple-probe design across participants, individualized intervention sessions were conducted with three students by an experienced special education teacher. The intervention employed a tablet-based virtual manipulative tool, focusing on single-step addition and subtraction problems. Results showed significant improvements in problem-solving accuracy, with participants achieving 80% to 100% accuracy during sessions. Gains were maintained 1 to 3 weeks later and generalized to new individuals and materials. Social validity findings indicated high satisfaction among students and parents, highlighting positive perceptions of the tool’s usability, engagement, and learning impact. The study underscores the importance of targeted teacher training for effective implementation and sustainability. Implications for educators, policymakers, and caregivers are discussed, along with recommendations for future research on broader applications of virtual manipulatives in math instruction for students with intellectual disabilities.
BassetteL.BouckE. C.ShurrJ.ParkJ.CremeansM. (2019). Comparison of concrete and app-based manipulatives to teach subtraction skills to elementary students with autism. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 54(4), 391–405. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26822516
2.
BouckE. C.BassetteL.ShurrJ.ParkJ.KerrJ.WhorleyA. (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
3.
BouckE. C.LongH. M.ParkJ. (2021). Using a virtual number line and corrective feedback to teach addition of integers to middle school students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 3(1), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-020-09735-z
4.
BouckE. C.ParkJ.MaherC.LevyK.CwiakalaK. (2019). Acquiring the skill of identifying fractions through the virtual-abstract framework. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 31(1), 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-018-9650-9
5.
BouckE. C.ParkJ.ShurrJ.BassetteL.WhorleyA. (2018). Using the virtual–representational–abstract approach to support students with intellectual disability in mathematics. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 33(4), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357618755696
6.
BouckE. C.ParkJ.StenzelK. (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
7.
BouckE. C.SatsangiR.DoughtyT. T.CourtneyW. T. (2014). Virtual and concrete manipulatives: A comparison of approaches for solving mathematics problems for students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 44, 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1863-2
8.
BouckE. C.ShurrJ.ParkJ. (2020). Virtual manipulative-based intervention package to teach multiplication and division to secondary students with developmental disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 35(4), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357620943499
9.
CarbonneauK. J.MarleyS. C.SeligJ. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400.
10.
GastD. L.LedfordJ. R. (2018). Research approaches in applied settings. In LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (pp. 1–26). Routledge.
11.
JimenezB. A.BesawJ. (2020). Building early numeracy through virtual manipulatives for students with intellectual disability and autism. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 55(91), 28–44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26898712
12.
KirbyK. D. (2013). The development of an idealized number line: Differentiating physical inscription from mathematical object. American Educational Research Association.
13.
LafayA.OsanaH. P.ValatM. (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
14.
LedfordJ. R.LaneJ. D.SeveriniK. E. (2018). Systematic use of visual analysis for assessing outcomes in single case design studies. Brain Impairment, 19(1), 4–17. https://10.1017/BrImp.2017.16
15.
LongH. M.BouckE. C.DomkaA. (2020). Manipulating algebra: Comparing concrete and virtual algebra tiles for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Exceptionality, 28(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1850454
16.
MoyerP. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014596316942
17.
MoyerP. S.BolyardJ. J.SpikellM. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives?Teaching Children Mathematics, 8, 372–377. https://doi.org/10.5951/TCM.8.6.0372
18.
OkM. W.BryantD. P.BryantB. 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://10.1080/09362835.2019.1579723
19.
OroscoM. J.SwansonH. L.O’ConnorR. E.LussierC. (2011). The effects of dynamic strategic math on English language learners’ word problem solving. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911416248
20.
ParkJ.BouckE. C.FisherM. 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
21.
ParkJ.BouckE. C.SmithJ. P. (2020). Using a virtual manipulative intervention package to support maintenance in teaching subtraction with regrouping to students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(1), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04225-4
22.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L.SauberS. 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
23.
PeltierC.MorinK. L.BouckE. C.LingoM. E.PulosJ. M.SchefflerF. A.SukA.MathewsL. A.SinclairT. E.DeardorffM. 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
24.
RakapS. (2015). Effect sizes as result interpretation aides in single-subject experimental research: Description and application of four nonoverlap methods. British Journal of Special Education, 42(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12091
25.
RootJ. R.CoxS. K.GilleyD.WadeT. (2021). Using a virtual-representational-abstract integrated framework to teach multiplicative problem solving to middle school students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51(7), 2284–2296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04674-2
26.
SatsangiR.BouckE. C.Taber-DoughtyT.BofferdingL.RobertsC. 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
27.
SatsangiR.MillerB. (2017). The case for adopting virtual manipulatives in mathematics education for students with disabilities. Prevention School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 61(4), 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1275505
28.
Savaşırİ.ŞahinN. (1995). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-R) administration manual. Turkish Psychological Association.
29.
ShurrJ.BouckE. C.BassetteL.ParkJ. (2021). Virtual versus concrete: A comparison on mathematics manipulatives for three elementary students with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 36(2), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357620986944
30.
SpoonerF.RootJ. R.SaundersA. F.BrowderD. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517751055
31.
Tekin-İftarE. (Ed.) (2012). Single subject research in educational and behavioral sciences. Turkish Psychological Association.
