The purpose of this study was to examine geometry interventions for students with learning disabilities. We synthesized nine intervention studies by focusing on the geometry concepts and skills taught to students with learning disabilities, intervention types used, instructional components embedded, and the methodological rigor of the studies. Intervention studies were mainly single-case designs. The geometry topics included angle recognition, and perimeter, area, and volume problems. The findings of this synthesis contribute to the current literature by showing that geometry interventions for students with learning disabilities incorporated proven effective instructional components (e.g., multiple representations, skill modeling). Regarding the methodological rigor, the results showed several issues, including the lack of description of interventionist training, intervention treatment fidelity, and adequate technical information for student outcome measures. Limitations of the studies and suggestions for future intervention research are discussed.
BergstromC.ZhangD. (2016). Geometry interventions for K-12 students with and without disabilities: A research synthesis. International Journal of Educational Research, 80, 134–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.04.004
2.
BottgeB. A.TolandM. D.GassawayL.ButlerM.ChooS.GriffenA.MaX. (2015). Impact of enhanced anchored instruction in inclusive math classrooms. Exceptional Children, 81(2), 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914551742
3.
BouckE. C.FlanaganS.BouckM. (2015). Learning area and perimeter with virtual manipulatives. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 34(4), 381–393. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/114409/
4.
BryantD. P.BryantB. T.HammillD. D. (2000). Characteristic behaviors of students with LD who have teacher-identified math weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300205
5.
BryantD. P.GoodwinM.BryantB. R.HigginsK. (2003). Vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review of the research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593594
6.
CarnevaleA. P.SmithN.MeltonM. (2011). STEM: Science, technology, engineering, mathematics. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
7.
CaseyH.MaritaS.WalshJ. B.TomaroT.GordonK.SaldanhaR. L. (2016). Teacher and student use of gesture and access to secondary mathematics for students with learning disabilities: An exploratory study. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 14(2), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600718294
8.
*CassM.CatesD.SmithM.JacksonC. (2003). Effects of manipulative instruction on solving area and perimeter problems by students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00067
9.
CawleyJ. F.FoleyT. E.HayesA. M. (2009). Geometry and measurement: A discussion of status and content options for elementary school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 7(1), 21–42.
10.
*CihakD. F.BowlinT. (2009). Using video modeling via handheld computers to improve geometry skills for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(4), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340902400402
11.
ClarkeB.SmolkowskiK.BakerS. K.FienH.DoablerC. T.ChardD. J. (2011). The impact of a comprehensive Tier 1 core kindergarten program on the achievement of students at risk in mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 561–584. https://doi.org/10.1086/659033
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
CommonE. A.LaneK. L.PustejovskyJ. E.JohnsonA. H.JohlL. E. (2017). Functional assessment-based interventions for students with or at-risk for high-incidence disabilities: Field testing single-case synthesis methods. Remedial and Special Education, 38(6), 331–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517693320
15.
Common Core Standards Writing Team. (2013). Progressions for the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (draft). Institute for Mathematics and Education.
16.
CookB. G.BuysseV.KlingnerJ.LandrumT. J.McWilliamR. A.TankersleyM.TestD. W. (2015). CEC’s standards for classifying the evidence base of practices in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514557271
17.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). Standards for evidence-based practices in special education.
18.
Creech-GallowayC.CollinsB. C.KnightV.BauschM. (2013). Using a simultaneous prompting procedure with an iPad to teach the Pythagorean Theorem to adolescents with moderate intellectual disability. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38, 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079691303800402
19.
CrowleyM. L. (1987). The van Hiele model of the development of geometric thought. In LindquistM. (Ed.), Learning and teaching geometry, K12: 1987 yearbook (pp. 1–16). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
20.
DennisM. S.SharpE.ChovanesJ.ThomasA.BurnsR. M.CusterB.ParkJ. (2016). A meta-analysis of empirical research on teaching students with mathematics learning difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31, 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12107
21.
DixonM. R.BelisleJ.StanleyC. R.DaarJ. H.WilliamsL. A. (2016). Derived equivalence relations of geometry skills in students with autism: An application of the PEAK-E curriculum. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 32, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-016-0051-9
GartlandD.StrosniderR. (2018). Learning disabilities: Implications for policy regarding research and practice: A report by the National Joint Committee on learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(4), 195–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718789994
24.
GerstenR.ChardD. J.JayanthiM.BakerS. K.MorphyP.FlojoJ. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202–1242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309334431
25.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.ComptonD.CoyneM.GreenwoodC.InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100202
26.
GoldenbergE. P.ClementsD. H. (2014). Why geometry and measurement? In DoughertyB.ZbiekR. (Eds.), Developing essential understanding of geometry and measurement for teaching mathematics in pre-kindergarten–grade 2 (pp. 1–2). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
27.
GriffinC. C.LeagueM. B.GriffinV. L.BaeJ. (2013). Discourse practice in inclusive elementary mathematics classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712465188
28.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164588
29.
*HornerC. M. (1984). The effects of LOGO on problem solving, locus of control, attitudes towards mathematics and angle recognition in learning disabled children [Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
30.
HornerR. H.CarrE. G.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203
31.
KangH. W.ZentallS. S. (2011). Computer-generated geometry instruction: A preliminary study. Education Technology Research Development, 59, 783–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9186-5
32.
KennedyC. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Pearson.
33.
KokB.DavasliglU. (2014). The effect of teaching geometry which is differentiated based on the parallel curriculum for gifted/talented students on spatial ability. Journal for the Education of the Young Scientist and Giftedness, 2(1), 40–52.
34.
*KozulinA.KazazS. (2016). Developing the concept of perimeter and area in students with learning disabilities (LD). European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(3), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0304-y
35.
KroesbergenE. H.LuitJ. E. H. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240020501
LinC.LuoF.LoJ.YangD. (2011). U.S. and Taiwanese pre-service teachers’ geometry knowledge and thinking. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ945539
38.
MoeyaertM.MagginD.VerkuilenJ. (2016). Reliability, validity, and usability of data extraction programs for single-case research designs. Behavior Modification, 40(6), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516645763
39.
MorrisS. B. (2008). Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059
40.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.
43.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education.
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/10.1002/jcad.12038
46.
PowellS. R.NelsonG. (2017). An investigation of the mathematics-vocabulary knowledge of first-grade students. The Elementary School Journal, 112(4), 664–686.
47.
*SatsangiR.BouckE. 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
48.
*SatsangiR.HammerR.BouckE. C. (2019). Using video modeling to teach geometry word problems: A strategy for students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518824974
49.
*SatsangiR.HammerR.HoganC. D. (2019). Video modeling and explicit instruction: A comparison of strategies for teaching mathematics to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 34(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10/111/ldrp.12189
50.
SchneiderJ. H. (2018). The effect of using a whiteboard interactively in a middle school mathematics classroom [Rowan University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
51.
ShawK. L.DurdenP. (1998). Learning how Amanda, a high school cerebral palsy student, understands angles. School Science and Mathematics, 98(4), 198–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17416.x
52.
ShinM.BryantD. P. (2015). Fraction interventions for students struggling to learn mathematics: A research synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 36(6), 374–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932515572910
53.
*StricklandT. K.MacciniP. (2012). 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(4), 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512441712
54.
SwansonH. L.CarsonC. (1996). A selective synthesis of intervention research for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 25(3), 370–392.
55.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcome. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 277–321. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003277
56.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM. (2001). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: A component and composite analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.00012
57.
SwansonH. L.Sachse-LeeC. (2000). A meta-analysis of single-subject-design intervention research for students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 114–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.879
58.
TalbottE.MagginD. M.Van AckerE. Y.KummS. (2018). Quality indicators for reviews of research in special education. Exceptionality, 26(4), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2017.1283625
59.
WattsG. W.BryantD. P.CarrollM. L. (2019). Students with emotional-behavioral disorders as cross-age tutors: A synthesis of the literature. Behavioral Disorders, 44(3), 131–147. doi.10.1177/0198742918771914
ZhangD. (2017). Effects of visual working memory training and direct instruction on geometry problem solving in students with geometry difficulties. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 15(1), 117–138. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1141989
64.
ZhangD.DingY.StegallJ.MoL. (2012). The effect of visual-chunking-representation accommodation on geometry testing for students with math disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(4), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00364.x
65.
ZhangD.WangQ.DingY.LiuJ. J. (2014). Testing accommodation or modification? The effects of integrated object representation on enhancing geometry performance in children with and without geometry difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(6), 569–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413507602
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.
