Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

An alternating treatments design was used to analyze the effects of concrete and virtual manipulatives on the duration and number of correctly solved linear equations by three middle school students with cognitive disabilities. Participants physically manipulated algebra tiles to solve an equation during the concrete manipulative condition. During the virtual manipulative condition, participants used a Chromebook to manipulate the virtual algebra tiles presented on the BrainingCamp website. All participants exceeded their average baseline accuracy scores using both forms of manipulatives to solve one and two-step algebraic equations. Comparing the two treatment conditions, two of the three participants had higher average scores for accuracy using the concrete manipulatives than the virtual manipulatives. One of the three participants solved algebraic equations in a shorter duration of time with concrete manipulatives. The data suggest both concrete and virtual manipulatives can successfully support students with disabilities to solve algebraic equations.

Keywords

learning disabilities equations manipulative mathematics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

A+ Educational Partnership . (nd). A+ math 6 curriculum. https://aplusala.org/college-ready/

Alabama State Department of Education . (2019). Differentiated instructional Guide for inclusion and resource support for Alabama educators. https://www.alabamaachieves.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/AS_2022125_2021-Math-Differentiated-Instructional-Guide-Complete-Guide_V1.0.pdf

Bone

Bouck

Witmer

(2021). Evidence-based systematic review of literature on algebra instruction and interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 19(1), 1–22.

Bone

E. K.

Bouck

E. C.

Satsangi

(2023). Comparing concrete and virtual manipulatives to teach algebra to middle school students with disabilities. Exceptionality, 31(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2021.1938057

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

Bouck

E. C.

Satsangi

Doughty

T. T.

Courtney

W. 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 Disorders, 44(1), 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1863-2

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

BrainingCamp . (2022). Algebra tiles. https://www.brainingcamp.com/algebratiles

Brown

M. C.

McNeil

N. M.

Glenberg

A. M.

(2009). Using concreteness in education: Real problems, potential solutions. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 160–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00098.x

10.

Burns

(1996). How to make the most of math manipulatives. Instructor, 105(7), 45–51.

11.

Chapman

S. M.

Ault

M. J.

Spriggs

A. D.

Bottge

B. A.

Shepley

S. B.

(2019). Teaching algebra with a functional application to students with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 54(2), 161–174. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26663974#metadata_info_tab_contents

12.

Cooper

Heron

Heward

(2020). Applied behavior analysis. Pearson.

13.

Council for Exceptional Children . (2017). High-leverage practices in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(5), 355–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917713206

14.

Gürbüz

(2010). The effect of activity-based instruction on conceptual development of seventh grade students in probability. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 41(6), 743–767. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207391003675158

15.

Long

Bouck

Domka

(2021). Manipulating algebra: Comparing concrete and virtual algebra tiles for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Exceptionality, 29(3), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1850454

16.

Long

H. M.

Bouck

E. C.

Kelly

(2023). An evidence-based practice synthesis of virtual manipulatives for students with ASD and IDD. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 38(3), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576221121654

17.

Marzano

Pickering

(2010). The highly engaged classroom. Solution Tree Press.

18.

Namkung

J. M.

Bricko

(2021). The effects of algebraic equation solving intervention for students with mathematics learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(2), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420930814

19.

National Center for Educational Statistics . (2022). The nation’s report card: Mathematics. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/nation/groups?grade=8

20.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics . (2000). Standards & focal points. https://www.nctm.org/standards/default.aspx?id58

21.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel . (2007). Preliminary report: National mathematics advisory panel. https://ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/pre-report.pdf

22.

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

23.

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

24.

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

25.

Root

J. R.

Browder

D. M.

Saunders

A. F.

Y. Y.

(2017). Schema-based instruction with concrete and virtual manipulatives to teach problem solving to students with autism. Remedial and Special Education, 38(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516643592

26.

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

27.

Satsangi

Hammer

Evmenova

A. S.

(2018a). Teaching multi step 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

28.

Satsangi

Hammer

Hogan

C. D.

(2018b). 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

29.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

Casto

(1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258700800206

30.

Shin

Park

Grimes

Bryant

D. P.

(2021). Effects of using virtual manipulatives for students with disabilities: Three level multilevel modeling for single-case data. Exceptional Children, 87(4), 418–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029211007150

31.

Shurr

Bouck

E. C.

Bassette

Park

(2021). Virtual versus concrete: A comparison of 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

32.

Spooner

Root

J. R.

Saunders

A. F.

Browder

D. 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

33.

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

34.

The IRIS Center . (2010). Differentiated instruction: Maximizing the learning of all students. https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/di/

35.

The IRIS Center . (2017). High-quality mathematics instruction: What teachers should know. https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/math/

36.

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. https://www.singlecaseresearch.org

37.

Willingham

(2017). Ask the cognitive scientist: Do manipulatives help students learn. American Educator, 41(3), 25–30.

38.

Wills

(2021). Incorporating manipulatives in the virtual math classroom. Cowin Mathematics.

The Effects of Concrete and Virtual Manipulatives on Solving Algebraic Equations in Students With Disabilities

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References