Comparing the Effectiveness of Virtual and Concrete Manipulatives to Teach Algebra to Secondary Students With Learning Disabilities

Abstract

A sizable body of literature exists studying various technologies and pedagogical practices for teaching secondary mathematics curriculum to students with a learning disability in mathematics. However, with the growing footprint of computer-based technologies in today's classrooms, some areas of study, such as the use of virtual manipulatives, lack sufficient exploration. Although concrete manipulatives were studied for many decades for students with a learning disability and are considered a best practice, the research base for virtual manipulatives is notably less. With a specific focus on algebraic instruction, this study sought to compare the benefits of both forms of manipulatives to assist secondary students with a learning disability in mathematics to solve single-variable linear equations using a single-subject alternating treatment design. Over the course of 30 sessions of intervention, three students exhibited over 90% average accuracy solving problems using both virtual and concrete manipulatives, while the concrete manipulative earned higher scores for two of the three students.

A Systematic Review of Interventions for Algebraic Concepts and Skills of Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities

“…A total of 89 students who were identified as having LD took part across the 12 studies. Studies reported their identification criteria for LD using two different approaches: the IQ‐achievement discrepancy model in three studies (Hunt & Vasquez, 2014; Hutchinson, 1993; Satsangi et al., 2016) and school districts’ RTI processes in three studies (Satsangi et al., 2016; Satsangi, Hammer, & Evmenova, 2018; Satsangi, Hammer, & Hogan, 2018). Three studies (Maccini & Hughes, 2000; Scheuermann, Deshler, & Schumaker, 2009; Strickland & Maccini, 2013a) reported that the schools’ processes followed each state's guidelines, yet did not provide detailed information.…”

“…Moreover, the participants included 30 Caucasians, eight African Americans, and six Hispanics; 45 were not identified. Only three studies explicitly reported the participants’ socioeconomic status (SES; Hunt & Vasquez, 2014; Maccini & Hughes, 2000; Satsangi et al., 2016). In three studies, five out of 12 students qualified for free or reduced‐price lunch or were of below average SES.…”

“…Second, six studies scrutinized the domains of HSA: REI and CED. Three studies (Satsangi et al., 2016; Satsangi, Hammer, & Evmenova, 2018; Satsangi, Hammer, & Hogan, 2018) investigated solving equations and inequalities in one variable including equations with coefficients represented by letters (CCSSM HSA‐REI.B.3). Two studies (Strickland & Maccini, 2013a, 2013b) focused on multiplying two linear expressions to produce a quadratic expression (CCSSM HSA‐REI.B.4.A).…”

Assistive technology interventions for adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: An evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Two interventions by another research group, Satsangi & Bouck (2015) and Satsangi et al (2016) took an entirely different approach. Both studies examined whether students with a mathematics disability could benefit from learning about geometry using virtual, computer-based manipulatives - both compared to no intervention and to physical manipulatives (the physical manipulatives were slightly more effective.)…”

“…Rather, what we need to know is which kinds of presentations we should use. One recent study, Kennedy et al (2015), did compare different kinds of multimedia presentations, and another (Satsangi et al, 2016) compared virtual and physical presentations of the same objects.…”