A systematic review of mathematics interventions for primary school students with intellectual disabilities

Abstract

This systematic review investigates the characteristics of effective mathematics interventions for students with intellectual disabilities (ID) age 5 to 12, focusing on early numeracy, arithmetic, and arithmetical problem solving skills. Twenty studies from 2008-2020 were reviewed: 17 had a single-subject design and three a group-comparison design. The studies included a total of 135 students with ID. Consistent with previous studies, the analysis showed that interventions with systematic and explicit instruction with feedback and the use of manipulatives are effective instructional approaches and strategies for students with ID. This study reveals that effective interventions are well-structured, high intensity learning sequences adapted to the students' achievement level. The intensity of an intervention requires careful consideration of the number of intervention sessions per week and their duration. Further studies should investigate which instructional strategy is most effective for each type of skill and the optimum intensity of interventions.

App-based mathematical intervention for youth with intellectual disabilities: a randomised controlled trial

“…Consistent with prior intervention research, the MG improved in both addition and subtraction fluency (partial η 2 = .153 -.271) (Cohen, 1988), as demonstrated by the significant difference between the two groups at post-test (cf. Browder et al, 2008;Hudson et al, 2018;Schnepel & Aunio, 2022;Spooner et al, 2019). This confirms that application-based interventions can be used to help students with ID to improve their arithmetic fluency skills (cf.…”

“…To date, four reviews of mathematical interventions aimed at individuals with ID have been published, and all show that interventions tend to have positive effects regardless of the mathematical content (Browder et al, 2008;Hudson et al, 2018;Schnepel & Aunio, 2022;Spooner et al, 2019). The empirical picture demonstrates that EI is an effective instructional method for teaching mathematics to students with ID and that the use of manipulatives is important (Spooner et al, 2019).…”

“…The empirical picture demonstrates that EI is an effective instructional method for teaching mathematics to students with ID and that the use of manipulatives is important (Spooner et al, 2019). Moreover, several similar studies have used technology aids and have displayed positive learning effects (Schnepel & Aunio, 2022;Spooner et al, 2019). Although a bulk of studies provide evidence that targeted interventions help students with ID to learn mathematics, few researchers have used RCT designs.…”

Special Education Teachers and Student Academic Achievement in Saudi Arabia

“…Teachers can address the disparities between students in regular instructions and their peers with MLD and autism by implementing evidence-based interventions, such as Modified Schema-Based Instruction (MSBI), which is a problem-solving heuristic approach (Root et al, 2022;Yakubova et al, 2022). students with autism are similar to students with MLD because their achievement is usually low when teachers fail to complement directed pedagogy with student-centered learning (Griffiths et al, 2021;Schnepel & Aunio, 2021;Apanasionok et al, 2021). Lowly educated and unaccredited are unlikely to assess and address disabilities and impairments impeding the achievement of their students in mathematics.…”

A meta-analysis of math anxiety interventions

“…In math performance research, interventions that vary in the number of sessions and length have been conducted, yet it is still unclear if there is a preferred design to utilize when executing an intervention, as shorter interventions with fewer sessions can be equally efficient as longer ones (DeFouw et al, 2021). For example, Schnepel and Aunio (2022) concluded in their review that the most efficient interventions were those that consisted of at least two sessions per week, while other researchers endorse interventions that are intensified in terms of session length and duration, and that are offered up to four times per week to increase the likelihood of progress (DeFouw et al, 2021). However, in the domain of math anxiety interventions, no previous studies have investigated the effect of intervention length in reducing math anxiety.…”