Secondary students with a learning disability in mathematics often struggle with the academic demands presented in advanced mathematics courses, such as algebra and geometry. With greater emphasis placed on problem solving and higher level thinking skills in these subject areas, students with a learning disability in mathematics often fail to keep pace with their general education peers. This study sought to address the lack of existing empirical research targeting viable interventions for learning the concepts of area and perimeter for secondary students with a learning disability in mathematics. Through the use of a multiple baseline design across three participants, virtual manipulatives were found to be an effective tool to acquire, maintain, and generalize the concepts of area and perimeter. Results from this study provide new evidence showing virtual manipulatives to be a viable and accessible technology to teach students with learning disabilities advanced mathematical concepts.
AlgozzineB.O’SheaD. J.CrewsW. B.StoddardK. (1987). Analysis of mathematics competence of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Special Education, 21, 97–107.
2.
BouckE. C.FlanaganS. (2009). Assistive technology and mathematics: What is there and where can we go in special education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(2), 17–30.
3.
BouckE. C.FlanaganS. M. (2010). Virtual manipulatives: What they are and how teachers can use them. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 186–191.
4.
BouckE. C.SatsangiR.DoughtyT. T.CourtneyW. T. (2013). 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, 1–14. doi:10.1007/s10803-013-1863-2
5.
ButlerF. M.MillerS. P.CrehanK.BabbittB.PierceT. (2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 99–111.
6.
CassM.CatesD.SmithM.JacksonC. (2003). Effects of manipulative instruction on solving area and perimeter problems by students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 112–120.
7.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards
8.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99.
9.
FunkhouserC. (1995). Developing number sense and basic computational skills in students with special needs. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 236–239.
10.
GastD. L.SpriggsA. D. (2010). Visual analysis of graphic data. In GastD. L. (Ed.), Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences (pp. 202–204). New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
GearyD. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 4–15.
12.
HuntingtonD. J. (1994). Instruction in concrete, semi-concrete, and abstract representation as an aid to the solution of relational problems by adolescents with learning disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia). Available from Dissertation Abstracts International. (56/02, 512)
JordanL.MillerD. M.MercerC. D. (1998). The effects of concrete to semi concrete to abstract instruction in the acquisition and retention of fraction concepts and skills. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 115–122.
15.
KaputJ. (1989). Linking representations in the symbol systems of algebra. In KieranC.WagnerS. (Eds.), A research agenda for the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 167–194). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
KennedyC. H. (2005). Single case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
MacciniP.GagnonJ. C. (2002). Perceptions and application of NCTM standards by special and general education teachers. Exceptional Children, 68, 325–344.
19.
MacciniP.HughesC. A. (2000). Effects of a problem solving strategy on the introductory algebra performance of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 10–21.
20.
MacciniP.MulcahyC. A.WilsonM. G. (2007). A follow-up of mathematics interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 58–74.
21.
MacciniP.RuhlK. L. (2000). Effects of a graduated instructional sequence on the algebraic subtraction of integers by secondary students with learning disabilities. Education & Treatment of Children, 23, 465–489.
22.
MarshL. G.CookeN. L. (1996). The effects of using manipulatives in teaching math problem solving to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 58–65.
23.
MercerC. D.MillerS. P. (1992). Teaching students with learning problems in math to acquire, understand, and apply basic math facts. Remedial and Special Education, 13(3), 19–35.
24.
MillerS. P.HarrisC.StrawserS.JonesW. P.MercerC. (1998). Teaching multiplication to second graders in inclusive settings. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 20, 50–70.
25.
MoyerP. S.BolyardJ. J.SpikellM. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives?Teaching Children Mathematics, 8, 372–377.
26.
MoyerP. S.NiezgodaD.StanleyJ. (2005). Young children’s use of virtual manipulatives and other forms of mathematical representations. In MasalskiW. J.ElliottP. C. (Eds.), Technology-supported mathematics learning environments: Sixty-seventh yearbook (pp. 17–34). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
27.
Moyer-PackenhamP. S.UlmerL. A.AndersonK. L. (2012). Examining pictorial models and virtual manipulatives for third-grade fraction instruction. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11, 103–120.
28.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
29.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. (2009). An improved effect size for single-case research: Nonoverlap of all pairs. Behavior Therapy, 40, 357–367.
30.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L.SauberS. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299.
31.
PetersonS. K.MercerC. D.O’SheaL. (1988). Teaching learning disabled students place value using the concrete to abstract sequence. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 52–56.
32.
ReimerK.MoyerP. S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24, 5–25.
33.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (1998). Summarizing single-subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification, 22, 221–242.
34.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.CastoG. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 24–33.
35.
StricklandT. K.MacciniP. (2013). The effects of the concrete–representational–abstract integration strategy on the ability of students with learning disabilities to multiply linear expressions within area problems. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 142–153.
36.
SuhJ. M.MoyerP. S. (2008). Scaffolding special needs students’ learning of fraction equivalence using virtual manipulatives. Proceedings of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4, 297–304.
37.
SuhJ. M.MoyerP. S.HeoH. (2005). Examining technology uses in the classroom: Developing fraction sense using virtual manipulative concept tutorials. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(4), 1–21.
38.
VannestK. J.ParkerR. I.GonenO. (2011). Single case research: Web based calculators for SCR analysis. (Version 1.0) [Web-based application]. College Station: Texas A&M University. Available from http://www.singlecaseresearch.org
39.
WitzelB. S. (2001). Multisensory algebra through concrete to representational to abstract instruction for middle school students with learning difficulties. Available from Dissertation Abstracts International. (63/01, 141).
40.
WitzelB. S. (2005). Using CRA to teach algebra to students with math difficulties in inclusive settings. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3(2), 49–60.
41.
WitzelB. S.MercerC. D.MillerM. D. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 121–131.
42.
WoleryM.BusickM.ReichowB.BartonE. E. (2010). Comparison of overlap methods for quantitatively synthesizing single-subject data. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 18–28.
