Students with mathematics learning disabilities (MLD) have a weak understanding of fraction concepts and skills, which are foundations of algebra. Such students might benefit from computer-assisted instruction that utilizes evidence-based instructional components (cognitive strategies, feedback, virtual manipulatives). As a pilot study using a multiple baseline design, with multiple probes, this study investigated the effects of Fun Fraction, a multi-component computer-assisted instructional program, on word problem solving with fractions abilities of three middle school students with MLD. Mixed findings were observed on word problem solving performance from the baseline to intervention phase after students received instruction through Fun Fraction. The percentage of non-overlapping data ranged from 56% through 100%. Limitations, suggestions for future research, and educational implications are discussed.
CarrJ. E. (2005). Recommendations for reporting multiple-baseline designs across participants. Behavioral Interventions, 20, 219–224. doi:10.1002/bin.191
3.
CoyneM. D.Kame’enuiE. J.CarnineD. W. (2011). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
4.
DiMaggioP. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263–287. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.263
5.
DoughertyB.BryantD. P.BryantB. R.DarroughR. L.PfannenstielK. H. (2015). Developing concepts and generalizations to build algebraic thinking: The reversibility, flexibility, and generalization approach. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50, 273–281. doi:10.1177/1053451214560892
FedeJ. L.PierceM. E.MatthewsW. J.WellsC. S. (2013). The effects of a computer-assisted, schema-based instruction intervention on word problem-solving skills of low-performing fifth grade students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28(1), 9–21.
8.
GarofaloJ.SharpB. D. (2003). Teaching fractions using a simulated sharing activity. Learning & Leading with Technology, 30(7), 36–39.
9.
GastD. L.LloydB. P.LedfordJ. R. (2014). Multiple baseline and multiple probe designs. In GastD. L.LedfordJ. R. (Eds.), Single-case research methodology: Application in special education and behavioral sciences (pp. 252–296). New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
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, 1202–1242. doi:10.3102/0034654309334431
11.
HechtS. A.VagiK. J. (2010). Sources of group and individual differences in emerging fraction skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 843–859. doi:10.1037/a0019824
12.
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. doi:10.1177/001440290507100203
13.
HuntJ. H.EmpsonS. B. (2015). Exploratory study of informal strategies for equal sharing problems of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38, 208–220. doi:10.1177/0731948714551418
14.
HuntJ. H.ValentineC.BryantD. P.PfannenstielK. H.BryantB. R. (2016). Supplemental mathematics intervention: How and why special educators intensify intervention for students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 37, 78–88. doi:10.1177/0741932515597293
15.
JitendraA. K.DiPipiC. M.Perron-JonesN. (2002). An exploratory study of schema-based word-problem-solving instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities: An emphasis on conceptual and procedural understanding. Journal of Special Education, 36, 23–38. doi:10.1177/00224669020360010301
16.
JitendraA. K.StarJ. R.DupuisD. N.RodriguezM. C. (2013). Effectiveness of schema-based instruction for improving seventh-grade students’ proportional reasoning: A randomized experiment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6, 114–136. doi:10.1080/19345747.2012.725804
17.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 26–38. doi:10.1177/0741932512452794
18.
LehJ.JitendraA. K. (2013). A comparison of the effects of teacher-mediated and computer-mediated instruction on the mathematical word problem solving performance of third grade students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 68–79. doi:10.1177/0731948712461447
19.
LewisK. E. (2014). Difference not deficit: Reconceptualizing mathematical learning disabilities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45, 351–396. doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.45.3.0351
20.
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.
21.
MazzoccoM. M. M.DevlinK. T. (2008). Parts and “holes”: Gaps in rational number sense among children with vs. without mathematical learning disabilities. Developmental Science, 11, 681–691. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00717.x
22.
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
23.
MontagueM.KrawecJ.EndersC.DietzS. (2014). The effects of cognitive strategy instruction on math problem solving of middle-school students of varying ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 469–481. doi:10.1037/a0035176
24.
NamC. S.Smith-JacksonT. L. (2007). Web-based learning environment: A theory-based design process for development and evaluation. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 23–43.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2010). Focus in grade 6. Reston, VA: Author.
27.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: Author. Available from http://www.corestandards.org
28.
NewtonK. J.WillardC.TeufelC. (2014). An examination of the ways that students with learning disabilities solve fraction computation problems. The Elementary School Journal, 115, 1–21. doi:10.1086/676949
29.
OdomS. L.BrantlingerE.GerstenR.HornerR. H.ThompsonB.HarrisK. B. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148. doi:10.1177/001440290507100201
30.
OkM. W.BryantD. P. (2015). Effects of a strategic intervention with iPad practice on the multiplication fact performance of fifth-grade students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0731948715598285
31.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L.SauberS. B. (2011). Combining non-overlap and trend for single case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299.
32.
PochA. L.van GarderenD.ScheuermannA. M. (2015). Students’ understanding of diagrams for solving word problems: A framework for assessing diagram proficiency. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 47, 153–162. doi:10.1177/0040059914558947
33.
ReimerK.MoyerP. S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5–25.
34.
ReneauJ. L. (2012). Using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence to connect manipulatives, problem solving schemas, and equations in word problems with fractions (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3530320)
35.
SayeskiK. L. (2008). Virtual manipulatives as an assistive technology support for students with high-incidence disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(1), 47–53.
36.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.CastroG. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 24–33. doi:10.1177/074193258700800206
37.
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
38.
SeoY.-J.BryantD. P. (2012). Multimedia CAI program for students with mathematics difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 217–225. doi:10.1177/0741932510383322
39.
SeoY.-J.WooH. (2010). The identification, implementation, and evaluation of critical user interface design features of computer-assisted instruction programs in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Computers & Education, 55, 363–377. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.002
40.
ShinM.BryantD. P. (2015). Fraction interventions for students struggling to learn mathematics: A research synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 374–387. doi:10.1177/0741932515572910
41.
SieglerR.CarpenterT.FennellF.GearyD.LewisJ.OkamotoY.. . .WrayJ. (2010). Developing effective fractions instruction for kindergarten through 8th grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4039). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practice_guides/fractions_pg_093010.pdf
42.
StultzS. L. (2008). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction for teaching mathematics to students with specific learning disability (Doctoral dissertation). Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
43.
TaberS. B. (2002). Go ask Alice about multiplication of fractions. In LitwillerB.BrightG. (Eds.), Making sense of fractions, ratios, and proportions: 2002 yearbook (pp. 61–71). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
44.
TolarT. D.FuchsL.CirinoP. T.FuchsL.HamlettC. L.FletcherJ. M. (2012). Predicting development of mathematical word problem solving across the intermediate grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1083–1093. doi:10.1037/a0029020
45.
TrespalaciosJ. (2010). The effects of two generative activities on learner comprehension of part-whole meaning of rational numbers using virtual manipulatives. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29, 327–346.
46.
TsankovaJ. K.PjanicK. (2009). The area model of multiplication of fractions. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 15, 281–285.
47.
van GarderenD.ScheuermannA.JacksonC. (2013). Examining how students with diverse abilities use diagrams to solve mathematics word problems. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 145–160. doi:10.1177/0731948712438558
48.
WechslerD. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: NCS Pearson.
49.
WengP.-L.MaedaY.BouckE. C. (2014). Effectiveness of cognitive skills-based computer-assisted instruction for students with disabilities: A synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 167–180. doi:10.1177/0741932513514858
50.
YuanY.LeeC.-Y.WangC.-H. (2010). A comparison study of polyominoes explorations in a physical and virtual manipulative environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 307–316. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00352.x
