Bridget Miller

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

ABSTRACT The past four decades have generated significant research toward improving the academic outcomes of students with disabilities, especially in the field of mathematics. In this effort, the role of technology in the classroom, both high- and low-tech, has garnered significant attention. For students with disabilities, the use of manipulatives is a form of technology with an established research base. Although concrete manipulatives in instructional practice have been thoroughly studied, the emergence of virtual manipulatives presents teachers with new options for teaching mathematics to elementary and secondary students. This article discusses the use of virtual manipulatives for students with disabilities while highlighting the benefits they pose, such as providing students with flexible options for learning, promoting student autonomy, and offering educators a wider range of options to accommodate diverse groups of students.

Comparing Visual and Statistical Analysis of Multiple Baseline Design Graphs

A growing number of statistical analyses are being developed for single-case research. One important factor in evaluating these methods is the extent to which each corresponds to visual analysis. Few studies have compared statistical and visual analysis, and information about more recently developed statistics is scarce. Therefore, our purpose was to evaluate the agreement between visual analysis and four statistical analyses: improvement rate difference (IRD); Tau-U; Hedges, Pustejovsky, Shadish (HPS) effect size; and between-case standardized mean difference (BC-SMD). Results indicate that IRD and BC-SMD had the strongest overall agreement with visual analysis. Although Tau-U had strong agreement with visual analysis on raw values, it had poorer agreement when those values were dichotomized to represent the presence or absence of a functional relation. Overall, visual analysis appeared to be more conservative than statistical analysis, but further research is needed to evaluate the nature of these disagreements.

Systematic review documents emerging empirical support for certain applications of iPods® and iPads® in intervention programs for individuals with developmental disabilities, but these are not a “one-size-fits-all” solution

This review provides a summary and appraisal commentary on the treatment review by Kagohara, D. M., van der Meer, L., Ramdoss, S., O’Reilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E., Davis, T. N., . . . Sigafoos, J. (2013). Using iPods® and iPads® in teaching programs for individuals with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 147–156. Source of funding and disclosure of interest: This study was supported by the New Zealand Government, Marsden Fund Council administered by the Royal Society of New Zealand; Victoria University of Wellington; The University of Canterbury; The New Zealand Institute of Language, Brain & Behaviour; the original authors of this research do not report any conflicts of interest.