Advertisement

Teaching Mathematics Among Students with Learning Disability: Non-technological and Technological Approaches

  • Thanyaluck Ingkavara
  • Pratchayapong YasriEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1048)

Abstract

A learning disability (LD) is a problem affecting how a student cognitively receives and processes information. Students with this condition may have trouble with learning skills including reading, writing and calculation. Therefore, it might be pedagogically inappropriate to adopt typical approaches with other students to teach LD students. This paper examines various approaches to teaching mathematics among LD students, covering both non-technological and technological. It points to the importance to integrate both approaches to make learning of mathematics among LD learners more effective. It is believed that technological tools are more engaging to students who have a short span of learning attention and those who need more aids for visualisation to learn. However, these have to be utilised appropriately based on the principles proposed by the non-technological approaches such as CPA, 3R and Task Analysis.

Keywords

Learning disability Mathematics education CPA 3R Task analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Carbonneau, K.J., Marley, S.C., Selig, J.P.: A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. J. Educ. Psychol. 105(2), 380–400 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cortiella, C., Horowitz, S.H.: The state of learning disabilities: facts, trends and emerging issues. National Center for Learning Disabilities, New York (2014). https://www.ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-State-of-LD.pdf
  3. 3.
    Bhulapatana, P.: Gaan Rian Rûam Chán Kŏng Dèk Pí-Sàyt [Inclusive Education for Students with Special Needs]. Bangkok: Suan Dusit University Press (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bottge, B.A., et al.: Impact of enhanced anchored instruction in inclusive math classrooms. Except. Child. 81(3), 158–175 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914551742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bouck, E.C., Working, C., Bone, E.: Manipulative apps to support students with disabilities in mathematics. Interv. Sch. Clin. 53(3), 177–182 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451217702115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brasel, S.A., Gips, J.: Interface psychology: touchscreens change attribute importance, decision criteria, and behavior in online choice. Cyberpshchology Behav. Soc. Network. 18(9), 534–538 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Browder, D.M., Trela, K.S., Jimenez, B.: Training teachers to follow a task analysis to engage middle school students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities in grade-appropriate literature. Focus Autism Other Dev. Disabil. 22(4), 206–219 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576070220040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Faber, J., Luyten, J.W., Visscher, A.J.: The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on mathematics achievement and student motivation: results of a randomized experiment. Comput. Educ. 106, 83–96 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fry, S.: How personalised technology can be used to benefit quality of life for people with learning disabilities who have multiple and complex needs. J. Assist. Technol. 6(1), 81–85 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1108/17549451211214409MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kanive, R., Nelson, P.M., Burns, M.K., Ysseldyke, J.: Comparison of the effects of computer-based practice and conceptual understanding interventions on mathematics fact retention and generalization. J. Educ. Res. 107(2), 83–89 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.759405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kassanee, S., Jaingam, S., Jitgaroon, P.: Reading ability development by learning management based on sensory integrated and 3Rs teaching method of intellectual disability students. Humanit. Soc. Sci. J. Graduate Sch. Pibulsongkram Rajabhat University 11(1), 13–21 (2017). https://www.tcithaijo.org/index.php/GraduatePSRU/article/view/90652Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kosc, L.: Developmental Dyscalculia. J. Learn. Disabil. 7(3), 164–177 (1974).  https://doi.org/10.1177/002221947400700309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lancioni, G.E., Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M.F., Singh, N.B.: Defining assistive technology and the target populations. In: Lancioni, G.E., Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M.F., Singh, N.B. (eds.) Assistive Technology. Autism and Child Psychopathology Series, pp. 1–9. Springer, New York (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4229-5_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liangphan, J.: Mathematics Skill Development of Brain Impaired Students, by Using a Teaching Principle of 3R’s style: A case study of Prathom 2 Level, Bangbua School, Master’s thesis (2006). http://ebooks.dusit.ac.th
  15. 15.
    Machand-Martella, N., Slocum, T.A., Martella, R. (eds.): Introduction to Direct Instruction. Allyn-Bacon, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    National Center for Learning Disabilities: Snapshot of learning and attention issues in the U.S. (2017) https://www.ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/1-in-5-Snapshot.Fin_.03142017.pdf
  17. 17.
    Peterson, S.K., Mercer, C.D., O’Shea, L.: Teaching learning disabled students place value using the concrete to abstract sequence. Learn. Disabil. Res. 4(1), 52–56 (1988)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rubinsten, O.: Mathematics anxiety in children with developmental dyscalculia. Behav. Brain Functions 6(46) (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-6-46
  19. 19.
    Satsangi, R., Bouck, E.C., Taber-Doughty, T., Bofferding, L., Roberts, C.A.: Comparing the effectiveness of virtual and concrete manipulatives to teach algebra to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learn. Disabil. Q. 39(4), 240–253 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948716649754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Szidon, K., Franzone, E.: Task analysis. National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    The Royal College Pediatricians of Thailand: Children with Disabilities. Bangkok, Thailand: Pediatric Society of Thailand (2015). http://www.thaipediatrics.org/Media/media-20161213141542.pdf
  22. 22.
    Vandewaetere, M., Desmet, P., Clarebout, G.: The contribution of learner characteristics in the development of computer-based adaptive learning enviorments. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27(1), 118–130 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Winter, E., O’Row, P.: Literature review of the principles and practices relating to inclusive education for children with special educational needs. National Council for Special Education, Trim, Northern Ireland (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Witzel, B.S., Mercer, C.D., Miller, M.D.: Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: an investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 18(2), 121–131 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00068CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Innovative LearningMahidol UniversityNakhon PathomThailand

Personalised recommendations