Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

App-Based Manipulatives and the System of Least Prompts to Support Acquisition,

Maintenance, and Generalization of Adding Integers
Author(s): Emily C. Bouck and Jiyoon Park
Source: Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities , June 2020, Vol.
55, No. 2 (June 2020), pp. 158-172
Published by: Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/27077908

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/27077908?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities

This content downloaded from

95.70.137.6 on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:41:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2020, 55(2), 158 –172
© Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

App-Based Manipulatives and the System of Least Prompts

to Support Acquisition, Maintenance, and Generalization
of Adding Integers
Emily C. Bouck and Jiyoon Park
Michigan State University

Abstract: Virtual manipulatives are an emerging intervention to support students with disabilities in mathe-
matics. Through a multiple probe across participants design, researchers examined use of an intervention
package consisting of a virtual manipulative (i.e., the Two-Color Counter app-based manipulative) and the
system of least prompts (SLP) to support students’ acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of solving
addition of integers problems. Researchers found a functional relation between the intervention package and
middle school students’ accuracy. All three students acquired the skill, with two able to consistently generalize
as well as maintain adding integers. The three students were also generally independent when solving the
problems with the app.

For students with disabilities, learning occurs across different settings, people, or materials
across four stages: acquisition, fluency, main- (Collins, 2012).
tenance, and generalization (Alberto & Trout- Research-supported instructional strategies
man, 2009; Collins, 2012; Shurr et al., 2019). that support acquisition include modeling;
Students start the acquisition stage when they prompting systems, such as least-to-most
begin learning a new skill or concept (Collins, prompting; task analysis; and visual supports
2012; Snell & Brown, 2011). When students (Snell & Brown, 2011; Shurr et al., 2019).
demonstrate the skill with 60% accuracy inde- Fading support and overlearning are two ex-
pendently or 100% with support, they move amples of instructional strategies that support
into the fluency stage (Shurr et al., 2019). maintenance of skills or concepts (Collins,
With fluency, students can be both accurate 2012; Snell & Brown, 2011). Generalization is
and efficient (Collins, 2012; Snell & Brown, supported through distributed trials, natural
2011). During the fluency stage, the skill is not reinforcement, and providing examples and
new and students become more independent. non-examples (Collins, 2012; Snell & Brown,
Once a student demonstrates a skill with suf- 2011; Shurr et al., 2019).
ficient accuracy (e.g., 60%) and realistic speed
for the real world, the student moves into the
Mathematics Education for Students with
maintenance stage (Shurr et al., 2019). Main-
Disabilities
tenance involves the performance of a skill
when it is not proceeded by instruction (Al- As with other areas, mathematics learning for
berto & Troutman, 2009). When students students with disabilities follows the stages of
consistently demonstrate the skill without re- acquisition, fluency, maintenance, and gener-
teaching across time, they have achieved alization. However, researchers suggest lim-
maintenance (Shurr et al., 2019). Generaliza- ited attention is paid to issues of maintenance
tion involves performing a skill consistently and generalization with regards to academic
content for students with disabilities (Spooner
et al., 2012). Although researchers found
Correspondence concerning this article should mathematics interventions and instruction
be addressed to Emily C. Bouck, 343a Erickson Hall, positively benefit student acquisition of math-
620 Farm Lane, Michigan State University, East Lan- ematical content (cf., Barnett & Cleary, 2015;
sing, MI 48824. E-mail: [email protected] Hudson et al., 2018; King et al., 2016; Spooner

158 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2020

This content downloaded from

95.70.137.6 on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:41:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
et al., 2018), the mathematical learning of nipulatives (Bouck et al., 2014; Bouck, Cham-
students with disabilities needs to extend be- berlain, & Park, 2017; Bouck, Shurr, et al.,
yond acquisition. The ability to maintain and 2018). With regards to virtual manipulatives as
generalize allows students with disabilities (a) part of an instructional sequence, the existing
access to mathematical content that builds research supports the acquisition of various
upon previous content, (b) independence in mathematical content by middle school stu-
mathematics and content areas that involve dents with disabilities (e.g., basic operations,
math, and (c) to perform mathematics-based fractions, algebra), but results are more mixed
independent living skills (e.g., purchasing, with regards to students maintaining after in-
cooking; Alwell & Cobb, 2009; Geary et al., tervention ends (Bouck, Bassette, et al., 2017;
2017; Powell et al., 2013). Bouck, Park, et al., 2018; Bouck, Park, et al.,
Manipulatives. Researchers exploring math- 2017). Researchers comparing virtual and
ematics interventions for students with disabili- concrete manipulatives for students with dis-
ties identified interventions and instructional abilities found both types of manipulatives
strategies that support acquisition. One such in- successful across mathematical content (e.g.,
tervention is manipulatives (Bouck & Park, subtraction, fractions), with some differences
2018; Spooner et al., 2018). Manipulatives are reported with regards to independence and
concrete or virtual objects students can manip- preference, in favor of virtual manipulatives
ulate to aid in understanding mathematical (Bouck et al., 2014; Bouck, Chamberlain, &
concepts (Bouck, Working, & Bone 2018). Con- Park, 2017; Bouck, Shurr, et al., 2018).
crete manipulatives are physical objects while Explicit instruction. Researchers also noted
virtual manipulatives are digital objects available explicit instruction as an evidence-based prac-
via the Internet or as an app (Bouck, Working & tice for teaching mathematics to students with
Bone, 2018). Researchers found the use of ma- disabilities (Doabler & Fien, 2013; Riccomini
nipulatives to be an evidence-based or research- et al., 2017; Spooner et al., 2018). With ex-
supported practice for students with disabilities plicit instruction, an instructor first models a
(Bouck & Park, 2018; Spooner et al., 2018). few problems, then the student attempts a
However, the majority of research involves con- few problems while the instructor provides
crete manipulatives; use of virtual manipulatives prompts or feedback as needed, and finally
as a tool to support students with disabilities is the student completes problems indepen-
still emerging (Bouck & Park, 2018). dently (Doabler & Fien, 2013). Much of the
Within the limited research base regarding research regarding virtual manipulatives---as
virtual manipulatives to support mathematics well as concrete manipulatives---involves ex-
for students with disabilities, the results are plicit instruction as the mode of delivery
positive. In a single case design study, Satsangi (Bouck & Park, 2018; Bouck, Satsangi, & Park,
and Bouck (2015) found three secondary stu- 2018). Both the virtual and the concrete grad-
dents with learning disabilities acquired---as uated instructional sequences (i.e., the VRA and
well as maintained and generalized---accuracy VA as well as the concrete-representational-ab-
related to area and perimeter when using a stract instructional sequences) employ explicit
virtual manipulative. Bouck et al. (2019) instruction (Bouck, Bassette, et al., 2017; Bouck,
found three middle school students with dis- Park, et al., 2018; Bouck, Park, et al., 2017;
abilities learned to solve division with remain- Bouck, Satsangi, & Park, 2018). Researchers
ders problems through the use of an app- have also successfully taught students with
based manipulative: Cuisenaire® Rods. Much disabilities to use virtual manipulatives out-
of the other research regarding virtual ma- side of an instructional sequence via explicit
nipulatives and students with disabilities in- instruction (Bouck et al., 2019; Satsangi et
volves the use of the tool within a graduated al., 2018).
system of instruction (i.e., the virtual-repre- Prompting. Prompting---such as the system
sentational-abstract [VRA] instructional se- of least prompts (SLP)---is a form of systematic
quence or the virtual-abstract [VA] instruc- instruction, which is supported as an evi-
tional sequence; Bouck, Bassette, et al., 2017; dence-based or research-based practice with
Bouck, Park, et al., 2018; Bouck, Park, et al., regards to mathematics instruction and stu-
2017) or comparing virtual and concrete ma- dents with moderate or severe disabilities

Virtual Manipulatives and Prompting / 159

This content downloaded from

95.70.137.6 on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:41:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
(Browder et al., 2008; Spooner et al., 2018). Method
The SLP involves a hierarchy of prompts that
are applied in increasing intensity or intrusive- Participants
ness if a student fails to respond (Shepley et
al., 2018). Generally, Shepley et al. (2018) The researchers included three middle school
found use of the SLP as a stand-alone inter- participants in this study. All three of the sev-
vention to be an evidence-based practice for enth and/or eighth-grade students received
students with disabilities as well as support for their mathematics instruction in a special ed-
this approach to teach students to use tech- ucation class taught by a special education
nology. They also suggested its use in academ- teacher. Two of the students received their
ics was appropriate for secondary students. mathematics instruction during one class pe-
riod and the other two during a different
period. Researchers worked individually with
Current Study students during their 61-minute period math-
ematics class or the shorter 30-minute inter-
Given research suggesting such effective inter- vention period, which the special education
ventions for students with disabilities as ex- teacher used for life skills. The special educa-
plicit instruction, the SLP, and manipulatives tion teacher selected students for participa-
(Bouck & Park, 2018; Shepley et al., 2018; tion in the study based on her assessment of
Spooner et al., 2018), the researchers sought their mathematical struggles and perception
to explore the impact of an intervention pack- of the benefits of one-on-one instruction. The
age to support students across the learning students’ mathematical struggles were evalu-
stages. The researchers felt attention to deliv- ated via the KeyMath-3 assessment.
ery of explicit instruction regarding use of Nick. Nick was an eighth-grade student,
app-based manipulatives to promote under- who was 14-years-old at the time of the study.
standing of addition of integers, supported Nick, a white male, was determined to be eli-
by the SLP, was a need in the field given gible to receive special education services
much of the research on virtual manipula- under the category of learning disability. Per
tives involves the tool as part of an instruc- his Individualized Education Program (IEP),
tional sequence. The researchers hypothe- Nick met the state criteria for learning disabil-
sized an intervention package as opposed to ity (i.e., as determined by the ability-achieve-
just one intervention (e.g., virtual manipu- ment discrepancy) in the area of mathematics
latives or explicit instruction or SLP) would calculation, reading, and reading comprehen-
result in improved acquisition and mainte- sion. Nick also had a secondary disability of
nance for the population in question. ADHD. Nick’s IQ, per his most recent evalua-
In this study, researchers sought to explore tion, was 71. On the most recent mathematics
the functional relation between the interven- achievement data available within Nick’s
tion package of use of an app-based virtual folder, he was in the fifth percentile on the
manipulative and the system of least prompts Test of Early Mathematics Ability-3 (TEMA-3;
and middle school students’ accuracy and in- Ginsburg & Barroody, 2003). On the research-
dependence in solving mathematical prob- er-administrated KeyMath-3, Nick’s numera-
lems. The study sought to answer the follow- tion score was 23, which was a 4.8 grade equiv-
ing research questions: (a) Does a functional alency and his total operations scores was 39, a
relation exist between the intervention pack- 3.6 grade equivalency.
age (i.e., use of a virtual manipulative and the Jess. Jess was a seventh-grade, 14-year-old,
SLP) and student accuracy? (b) with what per- white female. Jess received special education
centage of independence will students com- services under the category of autism. Jess was
plete addition of integers problems? (c) Are primarily educated in the self-contained spe-
students able to generalize solving problems cial education classroom, taught by a special
when no virtual manipulative or prompts are education teacher, which included her math-
available? and (d) what are student percep- ematics class. Jess received special education
tions of the use of the virtual manipulatives in services under the category of autism, al-
solving mathematical problems? though no autism assessment scores were pro-

160 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2020

This content downloaded from

95.70.137.6 on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:41:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
vided within her file. Her Individualized Edu- was generally less than 10 minutes in length;
cation Program (IEP) just indicated the pre-training was longer. The hallway was gen-
category of autism. On the Keymath-3 admin- erally quiet during the time of the study as all
istered by researchers, Jess’s numeration score other classes were in session.
was 15, a 2.5 grade equivalency. Her total
operations score was 25, a grade equivalency
Materials
of 2.6. As reported by the teacher, Jess dem-
onstrated more advanced mathematics skills Researchers used three main materials in the
than she tested. study: the iPad, the Brainingcamp Two Color
Cece. Cece was a seventh-grade, 13-year- Counter app, and probes. The app---a virtual
old, white female. Cece was eligible for special manipulative---was used on the iPad. The app
education services under the category of consisted of two different colored counters---
Other Health Impairment (OHI). According yellow for positive marked with a plus sign and
to Cece’s records, she was eligible for OHI red for negative marked with a negative sign.
due to a condition called Chromosome3Q29 The researchers used probes in all phases of
microduplication syndrome. Cece was evalu- the study and provided the dependent vari-
ated for autism, but determined not to meet able. Each probe reflected the mathematical
the criteria due to no delays in communica- focus of this study, adding integers (e.g., 3⫹
tion and a lack of preoccupation with parts of ⫺5 or ⫺2 ⫹8). Each probe consisted of five
an object. The Autism Diagnostic Observation problems. The researchers presented the
Schedule (ADOS-2; Lord et al., 2012) assess- problems the problem horizontally in a 2 ⫻ 3
ment within her file suggested no signs of table-like format with one problem per “cell.”
autism (i.e., score of 3). Cece’s file indicated To develop the probes, researchers created all
an IQ of 70. On the researcher-administrated possible integer problems involving numbers
Keymath-3, Cece’s numeration score was 16 from ⫺10 to 10, excluding the number 0. The
and her total operations score was 29, a 2.8 researchers then randomly assigned each
and 2.9 grade equivalency, respectively. problem to assessments; they repeated no
problems across assessments.
Setting
Independent and Dependent Variables
Researchers conducted the study in a public
middle school in a small Midwestern town The independent variable for the study was
located about half-an-hour from a large re- the intervention package of a virtual manipu-
search university and the state capital. The lative (i.e., app-based manipulative) and the
school district consisted of four schools: two system of least prompts. During each interven-
elementary schools, one middle school, and tion session, researchers allowed students to
one high school. The student enrollment use the app-based manipulative of Two-Color
across the district was about 2000 students, Counters (Brainingcamp, 2018) to represent
with just over one-fourth occupying the mid- and model positive and negative integers and
dle school. The middle school educated stu- researchers employed the SLP, which con-
dents in grades sixth through eighth. The stu- sisted of independently solving the problem,
dent population was predominantly white, gesture, indirect verbal, direct verbal, and
with less than ten percent African American, modeling. The researchers applied the SLP to
Latinx, and/or two or more races. Under one- the task analysis steps to solve the addition of
third of the student population in the district integers problems and activated it when a stu-
qualified for free and reduced lunch and ap- dent did not initiate the next step within 10
proximately 10% had an IEP. seconds and/or completed the step incor-
In terms of the setting for the study itself, rectly, up until the last step of answering the
the researchers worked with students at a table problem correctly. Although students could
in a hallway outside of their special education be prompted to use the virtual manipulatives
classroom. Researchers worked with students or check the sign of the counters left, they
during either their mathematics class or the were allowed to write down an incorrect
schoolwide intervention period. Each session answer.

Virtual Manipulatives and Prompting / 161

This content downloaded from

95.70.137.6 on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:41:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Two dependent variables were included in dent 3 completed additional baseline
the study: accuracy and independence. Accu- probes.
racy was defined as the percentage of prob-
lems---out of five---that students solved cor-
rectly on each probe delivered during each Procedure
phase of the study. Independence was deter-
mine based on the percentage of task analysis Data collection occurred one-on-one with stu-
steps students completed independently--- dents, with the exception of when two re-
without any prompts---during each session. searchers were present to collect interobserver
For each problem of each assessment, nine agreement and fidelity of implementation
steps existed to solve, resulting in a total pos- data. Session lengths ranged from less than
sible of 45 steps per session (task analysis avail- one minute (baseline) to 5:40 minutes (inter-
able upon request from first author). vention). Each student participated in a min-
imum of five baseline sessions, five interven-
tion sessions, five generalization probes
Experimental Design during the intervention phase, and four lon-
ger-term maintenance sessions. Two research-
Researchers employed a single case multiple ers completed data collection. The first---the
probe across participants design. Each partic- first author---was a special education professor
ipant began baseline simultaneously and com- with years of experience studying mathematics
pleted five baseline sessions prior to the first interventions for students with disabilities.
participant beginning intervention. After the The other researcher was a doctoral candidate
first student obtained a stable baseline---mean- who had three-plus years working with the
ing 80% of his/her baseline data fell within faculty member researching mathematical in-
25% of the median of that data---and had a terventions for students with disabilities.
zero-celeration or deceleration trend, the stu- Baseline. Each student completed a mini-
dent entered the pretraining phase. During mum of five baseline sessions. During each
pretraining, the researchers taught students baseline session, students completed a probe.
to how to solve addition of integer problems Each probe consisted of five addition of inte-
using the app-based manipulative, using the ger problems; for each problem there was one
task analysis. Once a student achieved at least positive and one negative number. Research-
90% accuracy and independence on the pre- ers printed all probes on an 8.5 ⫻ 11 piece of
training probe, the first student began the white paper and students used a pencil to
intervention phase. If the student did not solve the problems. Students received no in-
achieve 90% for accuracy and independence, struction or prompts during baseline, al-
researchers provided another pre-training ses- though the iPad with the app-based manipu-
sion. lative was set in front of students and students
During each session of the intervention, the were told they could use the virtual manipu-
student completed a generalization probe first lative to aid in solving. Researchers recorded
(i.e., without the app) and then an interven- only accuracy data during baseline.
tion probe with the use of the app-based ma- The first student left baseline after s/he
nipulative. Once Student 1 completed three completed five baseline sessions and his/her
intervention sessions in which s/he achieved baseline data were stable with a zero-celera-
80 or 100% accuracy and independence on tion or deceleration trend. The second stu-
the three intervention probes, Student 2 began dent left baseline once the first student
pre-training and then moved into intervention. achieved 80% accuracy and independence on
Similarly, Student 3 entered pretraining and in- three intervention probes and his/her base-
tervention under the same process---Student 2 line data were stable with a zero-celeration
obtained 80 –100% accuracy and indepen- and deceleration trend. Similarly, the third
dence on three intervention probes. While student left baseline when the second stu-
Student 1 was in intervention, Students 2 dent’s intervention probe accuracy data were
and 3 still completed baseline sessions and 80% or greater for accuracy and indepen-
when Student 2 entered intervention, Stu- dence on three intervention probes and the

162 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2020

This content downloaded from

95.70.137.6 on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:41:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
third student’s baseline data were also stable one, meaning one less than zero, when added
with a zero-celeration or deceleration trend. together equal zero and showed that when a
Pre-training. After each student met the negative red chip is moved on top of a positive
criteria to transition out of baseline, s/he en- yellow chip, they both grayed in color, indicat-
tered pretraining. During the pre-training ing a sum of zero. The researcher then dem-
phase, researchers individually trained each onstrated this for the remaining three positive
student on how to use the app-based virtual yellows chips, until only two negative red chips
manipulative---the Two-Color Counter (Brain- were left. The researcher stated, “looking at
ingcamp, 2018). To train students, the re- our work space we can now conclude that 4⫹
searcher used explicit instruction, meaning ⫺6 ⫽ ⫺2” and wrote that answer on the piece
the researcher modeled two addition of inte- of paper. The same procedures were used
ger problems using the app, modeling and regardless of the problem – whether, as noted
verbally narrating as a means to teach how to 4⫹ ⫺6 or 7⫹ ⫺3 or ⫺9 ⫹5 or ⫺2 ⫹8.
use the app. Next, the researcher guided the Intervention. Each student completed a
student as s/he worked to solve two problems minimum of five intervention sessions. During
using the app. Last, the researcher allowed the each intervention session, researchers deliv-
student to solve five problems independently ered an intervention package consisting of the
with the app-based manipulative. If the stu- app-based manipulative (Two-Color Counters;
dent achieved over 90% on the independent Brainingcamp, 2018) and the SLP. Research-
portion for both accuracy and independence, ers opened the app on the iPad and had it
when using the app-based manipulative, the ready for the start of the intervention session.
student moved onto intervention. If not, the Researchers instructed students to use the app
student repeated the pre-training phase at to aid in solving the problems. In terms of the
the following session. Note, all students SLP, researchers used a prompting hierarchy
achieved the pre-training criterion in one ses- consisting of independent, gesture (e.g.,
sion. The researchers set a high mastery crite- pointing to or gesturing towards the app or a
rion for the pre-training as it was the only feature on the app), indirect verbal (e.g., stat-
session in which explicit instruction was pro- ing, “what do you next”), direct verbal (e.g.,
vided. stating, “you need to make sure you have the
To train students with the Two-Color Coun- number of negative red chips on the work
ter manipulative, researchers explained the space that is written in the problem), and
yellow chips represented positive numbers modeling (e.g., physically moving a red nega-
and highlighted the positive---or plus---symbol tive chip onto a yellow positive chip to cancel
on the yellow chips. Similarly, the researcher it out and reflect a sum of zero). Researchers
explained the red chips represented negative worked through the SLP for each step of the
numbers and noted the negative symbol on task analysis for solving addition of integer
the red chips. During the modeling portion of problems and implemented a higher level of
the explicit instruction pre-training, the re- the prompting hierarchy when the student
searcher physically demonstrated how to use did not initiate action within 10 seconds (i.e.,
the app and move chips onto the work space, researchers used a 10-second time delay). Re-
while verbally narrating (i.e., providing a searchers allowed students to write down an
think aloud). With the problem 4⫹ ⫺6 ⫽ _, incorrect answer, as long as they followed the
for example, the researcher read the problem steps of the task analysis.
and then stated how the four is a positive The task analysis steps for solving addition
integer and thus could be represented by four of integer problems consisted of nine steps,
of the yellow chips, and subsequently pulled resulting in a total of 45 steps per session.
four yellow chips onto the work space of the These steps included: (a) determining if the
app. The researcher then stated that the 6 was first number of the problem was positive or
a negative six, meaning 6 less than zero and negative, (b) dragging the number of red or
could be represented by 6 of the red chips, yellow chips for the first number in the prob-
and subsequently pulled out six red chips. lem onto the white space, (c) determining if
The researcher explained that a positive one, the second number of the problem was posi-
meaning one more than zero and a negative tive or negative, (d) dragging the number of

Virtual Manipulatives and Prompting / 163

This content downloaded from

95.70.137.6 on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:41:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
red or yellow chips for the second number in Procedural fidelity was 100% for each partici-
the problem onto the white space, (e) making pant.
pairs of one yellow/positive and one red/neg-
ative, (f) counting the number of unpaired
Social Validity
objects, (g) determining the sign of the coun-
ters remaining, (h) writing down the answer, To assess for social validity, researchers inter-
and (g) clearing the screen. viewed both the participating students after
Maintenance. Students completed two the intervention ended. Each of the students
maintenance sessions at both two and four answered what they liked and did not like
weeks after their last intervention session. Dur- about learning mathematics with the app-
ing the maintenance probes, researchers gave based manipulative as well as what they
students access to the Two-Color Counters vir- thought about the researcher helping them if
tual manipulative (Brainingcamp, 2018) to de- they got stuck. Students were also asked if they
termine if students maintained solving addition would continue to use an app-based manipu-
of integer problems with use of the tool. lative if allowed in their classroom and if they
Generalization. Researchers administered felt the manipulative helped them to learn the
generalization probes during the intervention mathematics.
phase. Each generalization probe was similar
to baseline and intervention probes (i.e., five
Data Analysis
problems), but researchers did not allow stu-
dents access to the app-based manipulative To analyze the accuracy data, researchers con-
when solving the problems and did not imple- ducted both a visual analysis well as computed
ment the SLP. Generalization probes oc- various metrics for the accuracy dependent
curred the same day as intervention and main- variable. Specifically, researchers analyzed for
tenance probes; students completed the immediacy of effect, level, trend, and effect
generalization probes before completing the size (see Table 1). Researchers visually exam-
intervention or maintenance probes. ined the graphed data to determine the im-
mediacy of the intervention effect, comparing
the last baseline for each student to his/her
Interobserver Agreement and Procedural Fidelity
first intervention session. For level, research-
Interobserver agreement data (IOA) accuracy ers calculated the median for baseline and
data were collected by researchers for at least intervention---separately---and then deter-
20% of the baseline, intervention, maintenance, mined if 80% of the data for each phase,
and generalization sessions. During the inter- respectively, fell within a 25% range of the
vention sessions, researchers also gathered IOA median (Gast & Spriggs, 2014). For trend,
data relative to independence. To determine researchers determined the middle point,
IOA---for accuracy or independence, research- mid-rate, and mid-date for both the baseline
ers summed the number of agreements of the and intervention data, separately (White &
respective dependent variable and divided that Haring, 1980). Using the graphs, the research-
by the sum of the number of opportunities for ers then marked these points and drew a line
agreement or disagreements, and finally multi- connecting the mid-rate and the mid-date. If
plied the quotient by 100 for a percentage. IOA the line for that phase was straight, the trend
was 100% for accuracy and independence for was zero-celerating, if it was sloping up it was
each participant. accelerating, and if the line was sloping down
The second researcher assessed for fidelity the trend was decelerating.
of implementation data during 40% of inter- For effect size, the researchers calculated
vention session by completing a checklist as to PND and Tau-U for accuracy. To calculate
the first researchers’ procedural fidelity. The PND, the researchers determined the highest
second researcher checked that the student baseline data point. The number of interven-
(a) was given the iPad app; (b) was prompted tion data points higher than the highest base-
only after a 10-second delay for each step of line data point, divided by the number of
the task analysis; and (c) was given prompts in intervention data points (e.g., 5), and then
the set prompting hierarchy order, as needed. multiplied by 100 was the PND. To calculate

164 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2020

This content downloaded from

95.70.137.6 on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:41:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TABLE 1

Accuracy Data Analysis Summary of the App-Based Manipulative and Prompting

Intervention: Virtual
Measure Baseline Manipulatives ⫹ Prompting Generalization Maintenance

Nick
Range 0 5 (100%) 3–5 (60–100%) 5 (100%)
Mean 0 5 (100%) 4.6 (92%) 5 (100%)
Median 0 5 (100%) 5 (100%) 5 (100%)
Stability stable stable stable stable
Trend zero-celerating zero-celerating zero-celerating zero-celerating
Tau-Ua --- 1.0 1.0 1.0
PND --- 100% 100% 100%
# of sessions 5 5 5 4
Jess
Range 0 5 (100%) 0–5 (0–100%) 4–5 (80%–100%)
Mean 0 5 (100%) 3.6 (76%) 4.2 (85%)
Median 0 5 (100%) 5 (100%) 4 (80%)
Stability stable stable stable variable
Trend zero-celerating zero-celerating decelerating accelerating
Tau-Ua --- 100% 0.8 1.0
PND --- 100% 80% 100%
# of sessions 8 5 5 4
Cece
Range 0 3–5 (60–100%) 0–3 (0–60%) 1–3 (20–60%)
Mean 0 4.4 (88%) 1.6 (30%) 2 (40%)
Median 0 5 (100%) 2 (40%) 2
Stability stable variable variable variable
Trend zero-celerating accelerating accelerating zero-celerating
Tau-Ua --- 1.0 0.8 1.0
PND --- 100% 80% 100%
# of sessions 9 5 5 3

Note: a Tau-U conducted between baseline and intervention, between baseline and generalization, and then
baseline and maintenance.

Tau-U, researchers used an online calculator, Results

inputting both the baseline and intervention
For each of the three participants, a func-
data points, for each of the dependent vari-
tional relation was established between the
ables separately (Vannest et al., 2016). The
dependent variable of accuracy and the inter-
online Tau-U calculator then produced a vention package of an app-based manipulative
Tau-U percentage. Applying accepted metrics, and prompting (see Figure 1). The students
a Tau-U greater than .80 represented a very were also generally independent during each
large effect, one between .60 and .80 a large intervention session, needing few prompts to
effect, and one between .20 and .60 a moder- complete the session with the app-based ma-
ate effect (Vannest & Ninci, 2015). nipulative.
Researchers analyzed the mean and range
of the independence data across the five in-
tervention sessions. Researchers also analyzed Nick
the level of prompts provided to students--- During baseline, Nick answered zero ques-
determining if those prompts were gesture, tions correctly for each of the five sessions,
indirect verbal, direct verbal, or modeling. resulting in a stable and zero-celerating base-

Virtual Manipulatives and Prompting / 165

This content downloaded from

95.70.137.6 on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:41:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Figure 1. Accuracy of Solving Addition of Integers Problems During Acquisition, Generalization, and Main-
tenance.

166 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2020

This content downloaded from

95.70.137.6 on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:41:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
line phase. When trained on using the Two- prompts, all gestures. Two were for deter-
Color Counters (Brainingcamp, 2018) app- mining if the first number was positive or
based manipulative, Nick scored 100% on the negative, one for making pairs with the pos-
independent phase of explicit instruction. itive and number, and the last for finding
Nick maintained 100% during each of his five the sign of the answer.
intervention sessions, resulting in a stable and
zero-celerating trend intervention phase. The
Cece
Tau-U for his intervention phase was 1.0, a
very strong effect, and his PND with baseline Cece answered zero questions correctly dur-
was 100%. Nick scored 80% on the first gen- ing baseline for each of her nine sessions.
eralization session and 100% for each of the Although she achieved mastery criteria with
other four sessions, which resulted in a stable the app-based manipulative training in one
and zero-celerating phase. As compared to the session (100%), her accuracy during interven-
baseline phase, the Tau-U for generalization tion was more gradual. She answered three
was 1.0 and the PND was 100%. Nick also correct on the first intervention, four on the
scored 100% on each of his four maintenance second, and then five for the last three ses-
sessions, also resulting in a Tau-U of 1.0 and a sions, resulting in a variable but accelerating
PND of 100% for this phase. trend. Her PND for intervention was 100%
Nick was generally independent during and her Tau-U was 1.0. Her generalization
each of his five intervention sessions. On the data were also variable, but she never an-
first intervention session, Nick’s rate of inde- swered more than three problems correctly
pendence was 95.6%, meaning he needed two during generalization. The Tau-U for her gen-
prompts, both of which were gestures and eralization data was 0.8 and her PND was 80%,
delivered on the first task analysis step---if the with a range of zero-to-three correct answers.
first number was positive or negative. For each During maintenance, her accuracy was vari-
of the next four sessions, Nick was 100% in- able, ranging from one to three correct an-
dependent. swers.
Cece’s independence was more variable,
which ranged from 80.6%–96.3%. Cece never
Jess
completed an intervention session without at
Jess’s accuracy for each of her eight baseline least one prompt. While she gradually im-
sessions were 0. She too, scored 100% on each proved her independence from session 1 to
of her intervention sessions, resulting in a session 4 (range 90 –96.3%), it was her last
Tau-U of 1.0---a very strong effect---and a PND session in which she needed the most prompt-
of 100%. Her intervention data were stable ing (independence was 80.6%). Researchers
and zero-celerating, as were her baseline data. gave Cece prompts at the gesture, indirect
As with Nick, Jess was trained on the app- verbal, and direct verbal levels, and those were
based manipulative in one session, scoring spread across the different steps of the task
100% on the independent portion and dem- analysis, including determining the sign of the
onstrating mastery. Jess’s first generalization first number, determining the sign of the an-
session score was 0, after which she scored 80 swer, making pair, clearing the app screen,
or 100%. Her generalization data were stable and writing down the answer.
with a decelerating trend, although the
Tau-U was 0.80 and the PND was 80%. Across
Social Validity
the four maintenance sessions, Jess scored 80
or 100%. The Tau-U was 1.0 and the PND was The students all expressed a preference for
100% for her maintenance phase. using the app-based manipulative on the iPad.
Jess was also independent during interven- It was most pronounced with Cece, who strug-
tion. Like Nick, Jess needed prompts during gled during the generalization phases when
her first intervention session, but was 100% she was told she was not going to use the iPad.
independent for the subsequent four inter- She would repeatedly ask before starting the
vention sessions. Specifically, during her generalization probe as well as state it would
first intervention session, Jess needed four be easier and better with the iPad while she

Virtual Manipulatives and Prompting / 167

This content downloaded from

95.70.137.6 on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:41:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
was completing the problems. Nick and Jess (cf., Bouck, Park, et al., 2018; Satsangi &
also preferred to use the app-based manipula- Bouck, 2014), in this study, students main-
tive, as they enjoyed using the iPad. However, tained their learning, at least at rates higher
they did report they were faster when doing than baseline. When given access to the vir-
the math without the iPad. They all stated they tual manipulative, but no prompting, Nick
would use an app to solve other types of math and Jess maintained at rates of 80% both
problems. two- and four-weeks post- intervention. As
with acquisition, Cece’s maintenance data
Discussion were more variable, but still above baseline
levels. Given that a particular instructional
This study focused on the use of an interven- strategy targeting maintenance was not in-
tion package consisting of a virtual manipula-
corporated into the study (see Shurr et al.,
tive (i.e., the Two-Color Counter app-based
2019), researchers interpreted the mainte-
manipulative) and the SLP to support stu-
nance data positively.
dents’ acquisition, maintenance, and general-
Students in this study also generalized their
ization of solving addition of integers prob-
lems. In this study, researchers found a learning, meaning they solved addition of in-
functional relation between the intervention teger problems without a virtual manipulative,
package and middle school students’ accu- prompting, or any explicit instruction on how
racy. All three students acquired the skills, to solve the problems without the manipula-
with two able to consistently generalize as well tive. These results were more true for Nick
as maintain adding integers. The three stu- and Jess, who both achieved 100% accuracy
dents were also generally independent when on generalization sessions. For Cece, however,
solving the problems with the app; two stu- generalization was less successful; her highest
dents achieved 100% independence while one accuracy during a generalization session was
continued to need prompts throughout the 60%. Yet, Cece’s generalization data are not
five intervention sessions. surprising as she struggled more with inter-
All three students acquired the skill of ad- vention when using the manipulative, she
dition of integers when using a virtual manip- needed more prompts to successfully com-
ulative and supported by prompting, as sug- plete the task analysis steps during interven-
gested by all three achieving 100% accuracy tion, and she repeatedly said during the gen-
during intervention. For Nick and Jess, this eralization sessions that she wanted to use the
was immediate and consistent, while it was app and asked why she could not. As with
more gradual for Cece. As such, this study maintenance, specific instructional strategies
supports the limited but emerging research targeting generalization were not imple-
regarding the efficacy of virtual manipulatives. mented within the study (see Shurr et al.,
Previous researchers found secondary stu-
2019), but students applied what they learned
dents with disabilities successful in acquir-
about solving the addition of integers prob-
ing mathematical content when using vir-
lems with the app-based manipulative to solv-
tual manipulatives (Bouck et al., 2019;
ing the problems abstractly.
Satsangi & Bouck, 2015; Satsangi et al.,
In terms of independence, Jess and Nick
2018). To date, researchers demonstrated
the success of virtual manipulatives as an were generally independent – each achieving
intervention for secondary students with dis- 100% independence and hence needing no
abilities across the mathematical domains of prompts during intervention sessions. In con-
area and perimeter, linear algebra, division trast, Cece needed prompts during each inter-
with remainders, and now adding integers vention session. Although Cece displayed
(Bouck et al., 2019; Satsangi & Bouck, 2015; gradual improvement in terms of indepen-
Satsangi et al., 2018). dence during her first four interventions ses-
Although existing literature presents mixed sions, she needed the most prompting during
results regarding students’ maintaining their session five. Cece’s need for more prompting
learning with virtual manipulatives and virtual may have likely contributed to her lower main-
manipulative-based instructional sequences tenance and generalization scores.

168 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2020

This content downloaded from

95.70.137.6 on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:41:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Integer Instruction tem of least prompts as an effective interven-
tion, both in terms of accuracy as well as in-
Within the literature regarding mathematics dependence. Further, there was support for
interventions for students with disabilities, the efficiency of the intervention. After one
limited literature examines instruction in in- training session involving explicit instruction,
tegers; yet, for secondary students an under- students successfully completed five interven-
standing of integers can support algebra as tion sessions. From this, the students main-
well as aspects of daily living (e.g., tempera- tained, at higher levels than baseline, two and
ture or money; Gagnon & Maccini, 2001). four weeks after the intervention ended. Sim-
Maccini and Hughes (2000) and Maccini and ilarly, the students generalized, most often at
Ruhl (2000) both explored problem represen- rates higher than baseline, when they did not
tation and problem solution of middle school have the virtual manipulative. Further, each
students with learning disabilities with re- session was relatively short in duration. While
gards to solve integer problems. Through the training session was obviously longer as
use of the concrete-representational-ab- the researcher modeled two problems and
stract instructional sequence along with a then supported two problems, intervention
word problem strategy, Maccini and Hughes session lengths ranged from 0:31 to 4:11 for
(2000) and Maccini and Ruhl (2000) both Nick, 1:35 to 4:29 for Jess, and 4:02 to 8:13 for
found students were able to solve the prob- Cece. Given the efficiency, in addition to the
lems as well as maintain their success with efficacy, teachers may want to consider how
solving the problems. Similar to those stud- such an intervention package can be used in
ies, this study emphasized the use of a their classroom with their students.
manipulative (i.e., virtual vs. concrete) and An implication of use however, is that teach-
explicit instruction. However, this study fo- ers need the technology to implement the
cused on computation; future research intervention package. While the app-based
should focus on teaching addition---or sub- manipulative itself was relatively inexpensive
traction---of integers via word problems and (e.g., $0.99), teachers must also purchase the
in natural contexts (e.g., temperature, time, device it goes on. While researchers used an
money). iPad, app-based manipulatives are available
In this study, researchers used two-color from Chromebooks or computers. When vir-
counters (or chips) to symbolize positive and tual manipulatives are not an option, teachers
negative numbers, which may reflect a neu- may consider concrete manipulatives. To
tralization model (Battista, 1983; Stephan & date, researchers have yet to compare con-
Akyuz, 2012). While the use of the two-color crete and virtual two-color counters. However,
counters was effective in this study, research- a difference between the virtual manipulative
ers focused solely on addition, and with and the concrete is that the virtual manipula-
smaller numbers. Another model approach tive counters come with positive and negative
for working with integers involves the use of a symbols, whereas the concrete ones do not.
number line (Stephan & Akyuz, 2012). Re- Researchers may seek to compare concrete to
searchers suggested a number line model virtual two-colored counters, with a particular
presents advantages (Stephan & Akyuz, 2012); lens to differences that may contribute to one
it may also lend itself easier to subtraction of being more effective. Teachers could also
integers as well as help students to see the make use of a virtual, concrete, or represen-
real-world application of integers. Future re- tational number line; previous researchers
searchers may seek to utilize a virtual number suggested the number line model is more ad-
line as a tool for teaching students with dis- vantageous (Stephan & Akyuz, 2012). Re-
abilities addition and subtraction of integers. searchers may seek to compare concrete, vir-
tual, and representational (i.e., paper-based
Implications for Practice drawing) number lines for use to support ad-
dition---and subtraction---of integers.
In terms of implications for practice, the re- A final implication involves that students
sults of this study support the intervention with developmental disabilities were able to
package of virtual manipulatives and the sys- acquire---as well as generalize and maintain---

Virtual Manipulatives and Prompting / 169

This content downloaded from

95.70.137.6 on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:41:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
more grade-level appropriate content. Expo- cially when high rates of generalization during
sure to the concept of integers operations intervention are found.
generally occurs in middle school. Through Two final limitations involve participants
this study, with its approach of an app-based and setting or mode. One might determine
manipulative and the SLP, students were ex- that a limitation was the difference in disabil-
posed to grade-level or closer to grade-level ity classifications of the students in this study.
content. It is important to consider appropri- However, all students were served in the same
ate grade-level content for students with self-contained special education classroom by
developmental disabilities (Spooner et al., the same teacher and all struggled with add-
2018). ing integers. Also, Nick’s IQ was 71, which
according to the American Association on In-
tellectual and Developmental Disabilities
Limitations and Future Directions
(n.d.,), an IQ under 75 can still quality as an
This study, as all research, presents limitation. intellectual disability, with concurrent adap-
One limitation of the study is that researchers tive behavior limitations. It may be that Nick
were unable to separate the impact of the received the diagnosis of learning disability as
virtual manipulative from the support of the a result of the school’s reluctance to label as a
SLP. While the students generally needed mild intellectual disability (Gargiulo, 2012;
few prompts---with two achieving 100% accu- Polloway, Lubin, Smith, & Patton, 2010). Like-
racy---it is still difficult to untangle the effec- wise, one might determine a limitation was
tiveness of each. While one might hypothesize that intervention sessions were all delivered
that Nick and Jess would have successfully ac- one-on-one with a member of the research
quired adding integers without the support of team in the hallway, as opposed to in the
prompting, the case is not as clear for Cece. classroom by the teacher and/or in a group
Another limitation was that Cece struggled to setting. Researchers should seek to implement
a greater extent than Nick and Jess, including similar intervention within a classroom set-
her last intervention session at 80.6% inde- ting, with the teacher as the interventionist,
pendence. Researchers may have wanted to and/or delivering the intervention to more
extend the intervention to determine if the than one student at a time.
low independence, while still high accuracy,
was a one-time situation or a pattern, as pre-
References
viously Cece’s rate of independence was in-
creasing across sessions one through four. Alberto, P., & Troutman, A. (2009). Applied behavior
Cece also struggled to a greater extent with analysis for teachers (8th ed.). Pearson.
generalization and maintenance, which re- Alwell, M., & Cobb, B. (2009). Functional life skills
searchers hypothesized was related to her curricular interventions for youth with disabili-
lower rates of independence as well as her ties: A systematic review. Career Development and
Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 82–93.
repeated verbalized desire to only use the app-
doi:10.1177/0885728809336656
based manipulative and dislike the generaliza- American Association on Intellectual and Develop-
tion sessions. mental Disabilities. (n.d.). Definition of intellectual dis-
Additionally, a limitation involves that re- ability. Retrieved January 29, 2019, from http://
searchers did not probe for generalization af- aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition
ter a period of time. While researchers were Battista, M. T. (1983). A complete model for op-
able to determine students generalized the erations on integers. Arithmetic Teacher, 30(9),
skill---at least a small amount in the case of 26 –31.
Cece---during intervention, they failed to Bouck, E. C., Bassette, L., Shurr, J., Park, J., Kerr, J.,
probe for generalization during maintenance. & Whorley, A. (2017). Teaching equivalent frac-
tions to secondary students with disabilities via
Ideally, the students would have not only
the virtual- representational-abstract instructional
maintained their accuracy solving addition of sequence. Journal of Special Education Technology,
integers problems when provided access to 32, 220 –231.
the virtual manipulative, but also without. Re- Bouck, E. C., Chamberlain, C., & Park, J. (2017).
searchers should seek to collect generalization Concrete and app-based manipulatives to support
data at later points in future research, espe- students with disabilities with subtraction. Educa-

170 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2020

This content downloaded from

95.70.137.6 on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:41:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 tion and Training in Autism and Developmental Dis- Gagnon, J. C., & Maccini, P. (2001). Preparing stu-
abilities, 52, 317–331. dents with disabilities for algebra. Teaching Excep-
Bouck, E. C., & Park, J. (2018). Mathematics ma- tional Children, 34(1), 8 –15.
nipulatives to support students with disabilities: A Gargiulo, R. (2012). Special education in contemporary
systematic review of the literature. Education and society (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Treatment of Children, 41, 65–106. Gast, D. L., & Spriggs, A. D. (2010). Visual analysis
Bouck, E. C., Park, J., Levy, K., Cwiakala, K., & of graphic data. In D. L. Gast (Ed.), Single subject
Whorley, A. (2019). App-based manipulatives and research methodology in behavioral sciences (pp. 199 –
explicit instruction to support division with re- 233). Routledge.
mainders. Exceptionality [Advanced Online Publi- Geary, D. C., Nicholas, A., Li, Y., & Sun, J. (2017).
cation]. doi:10.1080/09362835.2019.1586709 Developmental change in the influence of do-
Bouck, E. C., Park, J., Shurr, J., Bassette, L., & main-general abilities and domain-specific knowl-
Whorley, A. (2018). Using the virtual-representa- edge on mathematics achievement: An eight-year
tional-abstract approach to support students with longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychol-
intellectual disability in mathematics. Focus on Au- ogy, 109, 680 – 693. doi:10.1037/edu0000159
tism and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 237–248. Ginsburg, H., & Baroody, A. (2003). TEMA-3 Exam-
Bouck, E. C., Park, J., Sprick, J., Shurr, J., Bassette, iners Manual (3rd ed.). PRO-ED.
L., & Whorley, A. (2017). Using the virtual-ab- Hart Barnett, J. E., & Cleary, S. (2015). Review of
stract instructional sequence to teach addition of evidence-based mathematics interventions for stu-
fractions. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 70, dents with autism spectrum disorders. Education
163–174. and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabili-
Bouck, E. C., Satsangi, R., Doughty, T. T., & Court- ties, 50, 172–185.
ney, W. T. (2014). Virtual and concrete manipu- Hudson, M. E., Rivera, C. J., & Grady, M. M. (2018).
latives: A comparison of approaches for solving Research on mathematics instruction with stu-
mathematics problems for students with autism dents with significant cognitive disabilities: Has
spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Develop- anything changed? Research and Practice for Persons
mental Disabilities, 44, 180 –193. with Severe Disabilities, 43, 38 –53. doi:1.o0r.g1/
Bouck, E. C., Satsangi, R., & Park, J. (2018). The 107.171/1775/410547097699619818775566601
concrete-representational-abstract approach for King, S. A., Lemons, C. J., & Davidson, K. A. (2016).
students with learning disabilities: An evidence- Math interventions for students with autism spec-
based practice synthesis. Remedial and Special Edu- trum disorder: A best-evidence synthesis. Excep-
cation, 39, 211–228. tional Children, 82, 443– 462. doi:10.1177/
Bouck, E. C. Shurr, J., Bassette, L., Park, J., Kerr, J., 0014402915625066
& Whorley, A. (2018). Adding it up: comparing Lord, C., Luyster, R. J., Gotham, K., & Guthrie, W.
concrete and app-based manipulatives to support (2012). Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Sec-
students with disabilities with adding fractions. ond Edition (ADOS-2) Manual (Part II): Toddler Mod-
Journal of Special Education Technology, 33, 194 – ule. Western Psychological Services.
206. Maccini, P., & Hughes, C. A. (2000). Effects of a
Bouck, E. C., Working, C., & Bone, E. (2018). Ma- problem-solving strategy on the introductory al-
nipulative apps to support students with disabili- gebra performance of secondary students with
ties in mathematics. Intervention in School & Clinic, learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research
53, 177–182. & Practice, 15, 10 –21.
Brainingcamp. (2018). Two-color counter. Retrieved Maccini, P., & Ruhl, K. L. (2000). Effects of a grad-
from, https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/two-color- uated sequence on the algebraic subtraction of
counters/id1052889023?mt⫽8 integers by secondary students with learning dis-
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., abilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 23,
Harris, A. A., & Wakemanxya, S. (2008). A meta- 465– 489.
analysis on teaching mathematics to students with Polloway, E. A., Lubin, J., Smith, J. D., & Patton, J. R.
significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, (2010). Mild intellectual disabilities: Legacies and
74, 407– 432. doi:10.1177/001440290807400401 trends in concepts and educational practices. Ed-
Collins, B. C. (2012). Systematic instruction for students ucation and Training in Autism and Developmental
with moderate and severe disabilities. Paul H Brookes Disabilities, 45, 54 – 68.
Publishing. Powell, S. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2013).
Doabler, C. T., & Fien, H. (2013). Explicit mathe- Reaching the mountaintop: Addressing the com-
matics instruction: What teachers can do for mon core standards in mathematics for students
teaching students with mathematics difficulties. with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities
Intervention in School and Clinic, 48, 276 –285. doi: Research & Practice, 28, 38 – 48.
10.1177/1053451212473151 Riccomini, P. J., Morano, S., & Hughes, C. A.

Virtual Manipulatives and Prompting / 171

This content downloaded from

95.70.137.6 on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:41:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 (2017). Big ideas in special education: Specially Snell, M. E., & Brown, F. (2011). Instruction of stu-
designed instruction, high-leverage practices, ex- dents with severe disabilities (7th ed.). Pearson.
plicit instruction, and intensive instruction. Teach- Spooner, F., Knight, V. F., Browder, D. M., & Smith,
ing Exceptional Children, 50(1), 20 –27. doi: B. R. (2012). Evidence-based practice or teaching
10.1177/0040059917724412 academics to students with severe developmental
Root, J. R., Browder, D. M., Saunders, A. F., & Yo, disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33,
Y. (2017). Schema-based instruction with con- 374 –387. doi:10.1177/0741932511421634
crete and virtual manipulatives to teach prob- Spooner, F., Root, J., Saunders, A. F., & Browder,
lem solving to students with autism. Remedial D. M. (2018). An updated evidence-based prac-
and Special Education, 38, 42–52. doi:10.1177/ tice review on teaching mathematics to students
0741932516643592 with moderate and severe developmental disabili-
Satsangi, R., & Bouck, E. C. (2015). Using virtual ties. Remedial and Special Education. [Advance Online
manipulative instruction to teach the concepts of Publication]. doi:10.1177/0741932517751055
area and perimeter to secondary students with Stephan, M., & Akyuz, D. (2012). A proposed
instructional theory for integer addition and
learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,
subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics
38, 174 –186. doi:10.1177/0731948714550101
Education, 43, 428 – 464. doi:10.5951/jrese-
Satsangi, R., Hammer, R., & Hogan, C. D. (2018).
matheeduc.43.4.0428
Studying virtual manipulatives paired with ex-
Vannest, K. J., & Ninci, J. (2015). Evaluating inter-
plicit instruction to teach algebraic equations to
vention effects in single-case research designs.
students with learning disabilities. Learning Dis-
Journal of Counseling & Development, 93, 403– 411.
ability Quarterly [Advanced Online Publication].
doi: 10.1002/jcad.12038
doi:10.1177/0731948718769248 Vannest, K. J., Parker, R. I., Gonen, O., & Adiguzel,
Shepley, C., Lane, J. D., & Ault, M. J. (2018). A T. (2016). Single case research: Web-based calcu-
review and critical examination of the system of lator for SCR analysis. (Version 2.0) [Web-based
least prompts. Remedial and Special Education application]. Texas A&M University. Retrieved
[Advanced Online Publication]. doi:10.1177/ July 23, 2018, from singlecaseresearch.org
0741932517751213 White, O. R., & Haring, N. G. (1980). Exceptional
Shurr, J., Jimenez, B., & Bouck, E. C. (2019). Edu- teaching (2nd ed.). Merrill.
cating students with intellectual disability and autism
spectrum disorder: Book 1 Research-based practices and Received: 13 February 2019
education science. Council for Exceptional Chil- Initial Acceptance: 9 April 2019
dren. Final Acceptance: 15 May 2019

172 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2020

This content downloaded from

95.70.137.6 on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:41:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms