A Comparison of Three Instructional Methods for Teaching Math Skills to Secondary Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the most effective of three instructional methods for teaching mathematics to secondary students with emotional and behavioral disorders. A single-subject alternating-treatments research design was used to compare three instructional methods: direct teach, computer-assisted instruction, and a combination of both methods. Disability label, age, and IQ were related to learning outcomes. In addition, although the combined method was more effective for some learners, variables such as attendance and motivation, as well as IQ, comorbid conditions, age, and number of years spent in school, affected learning outcomes.

Effects of Student Choice of Instructional Method on the Learning Outcomes of Students With Comorbid Learning and Emotional/Behavioral Disabilities

“…Results of this study seem to contradict findings from Hott et al (2014) and Billingsley, Scheuermann, and Webber (2009). Many students in the first study benefited from peer tutoring and self-monitoring; however, a functional relationship between those interventions and improved academic outcomes did not exist for all students.…”

Mathematics Dispositions of Secondary School Students With Special Educational Needs

“…However, the type of SEN should not be the sole indicator when planning instructional/pedagogic practices, as individual characteristics and variation are also of paramount importance. For example, Billingsley, Scheuermann and Webber () in comparing three instructional practices for teaching mathematics to students with emotional and behavioural difficulties found that no single method was preferable for all students but results varied across individuals based on other variables such as age, number of years spent at school and the existence of additional learning difficulties among others. This paper has also shown that the self‐efficacy of students with SEN is overall lower compared to students without SEN. Qualitative results revealed how this is closely linked to students’ mathematical dispositions.…”

An Examination of Intervention Research with Secondary Students with EBD in Light of Common Core State Standards for Mathematics

“…In four studies, the researcher conducted training for the intervention and the teacher carried out the instruction. Authors of three studies (Haydon et al, 2012;Stowitschek, Lewis, Shores, & Ezzell, 1980) provided details on the training of the interventionist, while authors of seven studies (Billingsley, Scheuermann, & Webber, 2009;Bottge et al, 2006;Cade & Gunter, 2002;Carr & Punzo, 1993;Davis & Hajicek, 1985;Hawkins, Brady, Hamilton, Williams, & Taylor, 1994;Haydon et al, 2012) described the background of the interventionist (e.g., years of teaching and certification area). *5 Practice standard potentially included but more information needed to be certain.…”

“…This category included studies that incorporated video-based anchors, computer-assisted instruction, and iPads into instruction. Three studies included the following technology based interventions: (a) Enhanced Anchored Instruction (EAI) using video-based anchors that embedded real-world situations into instruction (Bottge et al, 2006), (b) computer-assisted instruction with use of a self-paced math software program with assessment features (Billingsley et al, 2009), and (c) iPads (Haydon et al, 2012).…”

“…Computer-assisted instruction. Billingsley et al (2009) compared the effects of three types of instructional formats (direct teach, computer assisted, combination) on students' math performance involving division, fractions, decimals, and percentages. The direct teach methods included linking new information to previously learned content, teacherdirected instruction, guided student practice with teacher feedback, and closure with review prior to independent student practice.…”