In the present study, mobile technology was leveraged as a learning tool for core math instruction during a whole number multiplication and division unit. The researchers redesigned paper–pencil worksheets from the math curriculum into multimedia-enhanced, interactive math practice (the eWorkbook) accessed by students on an iPad. With this eWorkbook, which was conceptualized within a Universal Design for Learning framework, we aimed to reduce barriers and capitalize on strengths by embedding flexible scaffolds/supports, allowing for student choice, and incorporating evidence-based teaching practices. Results of this case study suggest students with and without learning disabilities can leverage multimedia to foster unique opportunities for the understanding and expression of mathematical knowledge. Additional affordances of the eWorkbook include extending the reach of teacher support while encouraging self-support. Implications for teachers and researchers are discussed.
Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2015, November). Position of the association of mathematics teacher educators on technology. Retrieved fromhttps://amte.net/position/amtetechnology
2.
BeishuizenJ. (2011). Fostering self-regulated learning in technology enhanced learning environments: Evidence from empirical research. In CarneiroR.LefrereP.SteffensK.UnderwoodJ. (Eds.), Self-regulated learning in technology enhanced environments: A European perspective (Vol. 5, pp. 103–122). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
3.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
4.
CaveA.BrownC. W. (2010). When learning is at stake: Exploration of the role of teacher training and professional development schools on elementary students’ math achievement. National Forum of Teacher Education Journal, 20, 1–21. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nationalforum.com/Journals/NFTEJ/NFTEJ.htm
5.
ChangK.-E.SungY.-T.ChenY.-L.HuangL.-H. (2008). Learning multiplication through computer-assisted learning activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2904–2916. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.04.015w
6.
ChauhanS. (2017). A meta-analysis of the impact of technology on learning effectiveness of elementary students. Computers & Education, 105, 14–30. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.005
7.
ClementsD. H.SaramaJ. (2012). Building blocks. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
8.
ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S.FuchsD.LambertW.HamlettC. (2012). The cognitive and academic profiles of reading and mathematics learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 79–95. doi:10.1177/0022219410393012
CummingT. M.Draper RodríguezC. (2017). A meta-analysis of mobile technology supporting individuals with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 51, 164–176. doi:10.1177/0022466917713983
11.
DoablerC. T.CaryM. S.JungjohannK.ClarkeB.FienH.BakerS.…ChardD. (2012). Enhancing core mathematics instruction for students at risk for mathematics disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44, 48–57. doi:10.1177/004005991204400405
12.
EdyburnD. L.RaoK.HariharanP. (2017). Technological practices supporting diverse students in inclusive settings. In HughesM. T.TalbottE. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of diversity in special education (pp. 357–377). West Sussex, England: John Wiley.
13.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550. doi:10.2307/258557
14.
FriesK. M. (2013). Effectiveness of mastering math facts on second-and third-grade students with specific learning disabilities in mathematics. The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved fromhttps://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/18702/16981
15.
FusonK. (2013). The next-generation NSF program math expressions and the common core state standards. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Retrieved fromhttp://hmhco.com/mathexpressions
16.
GearyD. C. (2011). Consequences, characteristics, and causes of mathematical learning disabilities and persistent low achievement in mathematics. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 32, 250–263. doi:10.1097/DBP.0b013e318209edef
17.
GierdienF. (2009). More than multiplication in a 12 × 12 multiplication table. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 40, 662–669. doi:10.1080/00207390802641684
18.
HaleJ.AlfonsoV.BerningerV.BrackenB.ChristoC.ClarkE.…GoldsteinS. (2010). Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An expert white paper consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 223–236. doi:10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I2-5276
19.
HarriesT.SuggateJ. (2006). Exploring links across representations of numbers with young children. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 13, 53–64. Retrieved fromhttp://dro.dur.ac.uk/1847/
20.
HowellR.SidorenkoE.JuricaJ. (1987). The effects of computer use on the acquisition of multiplication facts by a student with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 336–340. doi:10.1177/002221948702000606
21.
HuangH. E. (2014). Third- to fourth-grade students’ conceptions of multiplication and area measurement. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46, 449–463. doi:10.1007/s11858-014-0603-1
22.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
23.
JitendraA. K.StarJ. R. (2011). Meeting the needs of students with learning disabilities in inclusive mathematics classrooms: The role of schema-based instruction on mathematical problem-solving. Theory into Practice, 50, 12–19. doi:10.1080/00405841.2011.534912
24.
KaczorowskiT. L. (2017). Educational technology for diverse learners. New Times for DLD, 35, 1–10. Retrieved fromhttp://teachingld.org/dld_times
25.
KagoharaD. M.van der MeerL.RamdossS.O’ReillyM. F.LancioniG. E.DavisT. N.…SigafoosJ. (2013). Using iPods® and iPads® in teaching programs for individuals with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 147–156. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2012.07.027
26.
KhouyibabaS. (2010). Teaching mathematics with technology. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 638–643. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.210
27.
KimM. C.HannafinM. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56, 403–417. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.024
28.
KinzerC. J.StanfordT. (2014). The distributive property: The core of multiplication. Teaching Children Mathematics, 20, 302–309. doi:10.5951/teacchilmath.20.5.0302
29.
KoscinskiS. T.GastD. L. (1993). Use of constant time delay in teaching multiplication facts to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 533–544. doi:10.1177/002221949302600807
30.
KrawecJ. L. (2014). Problem representation and mathematical problem solving of students of varying math ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 103–115. doi:10.1177/0022219412436976
31.
LanderlK.GöbelS. M.MollK. (2013). Core deficit and individual manifestations of developmental dyscalculia (DD): The role of comorbidity. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2, 38–42. doi:10.1016/j.tine.2013.06.002
32.
LeechN. L.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43, 265–275. doi:10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3
33.
LundK.McLaughlinT. F.NeymanJ.EversonM. (2012). The effects of DI flashcards and math racetrack on multiplication facts for two elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 1, 1–15. Retrieved fromhttps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1127923.pdf
34.
MontagueM.EndersC.DietzS. (2011). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on math problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 262–272. doi:10.1177/0731948711421762
35.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2015, July). Strategic use of technology in teaching and learning mathematics: A position of the national council of teachers of mathematics. Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/
36.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved fromhttps://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/reports.html
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED466086
39.
SeoY.-J.BryantD. P. (2009). Analysis of studies of the effects of computer-assisted instruction on the mathematics performance of students with learning disabilities. Computers & Education, 53, 913–928. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.002
40.
SmithM. S.SteinM. K. (2011). 5 practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions (1st ed.). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
41.
TingY.-L. (2013). Using mobile technologies to create interwoven learning interactions: An intuitive design and its evaluation. Computers & Education, 60, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.004
42.
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education (National Education Technology Plan). Washington DC: Office of Educational Technology. Retrieved fromhttp://tech.ed.gov
43.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016, May). The condition of education: Children and youth with disabilities. Retrieved fromhttps://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp
44.
van GarderenD.PochA.JacksonC.RobertsS. A. (2017). Teaching mathematics to students with disabilities from diverse backgrounds. In HughesM. T.TalbottE. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of diversity in special education (pp. 209–230). West Sussex, England: John Wiley.
45.
WuW.-H.Jim WuY.-C.ChenC.-Y.KaoH.-Y.LinC.-H.HuangS.-H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59, 817–827. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.016
46.
YinR. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
