The case for adopting virtual manipulatives in mathematics education for students with disabilities

References

• Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2007). The software checklist: Evaluating educational software for use by students with disabilities. Technology in Action, 3, 1–16. doi:10.1177/016264341202700105
   Google Scholar
• Bouck, E. C. (2009). Calculating the value of graphing calculators for seventh-grade students with and without disabilities: A pilot study. Remedial and Special Education, 30(4), 207–215. doi:10.1177/0741932508321010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouck, E. C., & Meyer, N. K. (2012). eText, mathematics and students with VI: What teachers need to know. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(2), 42–49. doi:10.1177/004005991204500206
   Google Scholar
• Bouck, E. C., Satsangi, R., Doughty, T. T., & Courtney, W. T. (2014). Virtual and concrete manipulatives: A comparison of approaches for solving mathematics problems for students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, 180–193. doi:10.1007/s10803-013-1863-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouck, E. C., Shurr, J. C., Tom, K., Jasper, A. D., Bassette, L., Miller, B., & Flanagan, S. M. (2012). Fix it with TAPE: Repurposing technology to be assistive technology for students with high-incidence disabilities. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 56(2), 121–128. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2011.603396
   Google Scholar
• Cherner, T., Dix, J., & Lee, C. (2014). Cleaning up that mess: A framework for classifying educational apps. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 158–193.
   Google Scholar
• Crean, D. A., Gaines, J., Paul, A., & Rukobo, E. Z. (2014). Virtual learning program rubric. Philadelphia, PA: Center on Innovations in Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Desmos Inc. (2016). Explore math with Desmos. Retrieved from https://www.desmos.com/
   Google Scholar
• Deubel, P. (2003). An investigation of behaviorist and cognitive approaches to instructional multimedia design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12, 63–90.
   Google Scholar
• Finegan, C., & Austin, N. J. (2002). Developmentally appropriate technology for young children. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2002, 87–102.
   Google Scholar
• Flaherty, J., Connolly, B., & Lee-Bayha, J., (2005). Evaluation of the First In Math® online mathematics program. San Diego, CA: WestEd.
   Google Scholar
• Flores, M. M. (2009). Teaching subtraction with regrouping to students experiencing difficulty in mathematics. Preventing School Failure, 53, 145–152. doi:10.3200/PSFL.53.3.145-152
   Google Scholar
• Gire, E., Carmichael, A., Chini, J., Rouinfar, A., Rebello, S., & Puntambekar, S. (2010). The effects of physical and virtual manipulatives on students’ conceptual learning about pulleys. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 937–943). Chicago, IL: ICLS.
   Google Scholar
• Killu, K., Clare, C. M., & Im, A. (1999). Choice vs. preference: The effects of choice and no choice of preferred and non preferred spelling tasks on the academic behavior of students with disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 9, 239–253.
   Google Scholar
• Manning, J. P. (2005). Rediscovering Forbel: A call to re-examine his life and gifts. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(6), 371–376. doi:10.1007/s10643-005-0004-8
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortensen, C. (2011). Mission possible: Three keys to one-to-one success. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39, 16–21.
   Google Scholar
• Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J. J., & Spikell, M. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8, 372–377.
   Google Scholar
• National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). National assessment of educational progress (NAEP): Mathematics assessments. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). The condition of education 2014: International assessments (NCES 2014-083). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2013). A position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: What is procedural fluency and how do we help students develop it? Retrieved from http://www.NCTM.org
   Google Scholar
• Park, O., & Etgen, M. (2000). Research-based principles for multi-media presentation. In M. Spector (Ed.), Integrated and holistic perspectives on learning, instruction, and technology (pp. 197–212). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Patrick, S. (2011). New learning models: The evolution of online learning into innovative K–12 blended programs. Educational Technology, 51(6), 19–26.
   Google Scholar
• Ramani, G., & Siegler, R. S. (2008). Promoting broad and stable improvements in low-income children's numerical knowledge through playing number board games. Child Development, 79, 375–394. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01131.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satsangi, R., & Bouck, E. C. (2014). 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. doi:10.1177/0731948714550101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satsangi, R., Bouck, E. C., Taber-Doughty, T., Bofferding, L., & Roberts, C. A. (2016). Comparing the effectiveness of virtual and concrete manipulatives to teach algebra to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(4), 240–253. doi:10.1177/0731948716649754
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seo, Y. J., & Woo, H. (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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherer, M., Pierce, L., Paredes, S., Kisacky, L., Ingersoll, B., & Schreibman, L. (2001). Enhancing conversation skills in children with autism via video technology: Which is better, “self” or “other” as a model? Behavior Modification, 25, 140–158. doi:10.1177/0145445501251008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber-Doughty, T. (2005). Considering student choice when selecting instructional strategies: A comparison of three prompting systems. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26(5), 411–432. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2004.07.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Teachers’ Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: 2009 (NCES). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010040.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Weng, P-L., & Taber-Doughty, T. (2015). Developing an app evaluation rubric for practitioners in special education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 30, 43–58. doi:10.1177/016264341503000104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witzel, B. S. (2005). Using CRA to teach algebra to students with math difficulties in inclusive settings. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3(2), 49–60.
   Google Scholar