Video Modeling and Explicit Instruction: A Comparison of Strategies for Teaching Mathematics to Students with Learning Disabilities

Abstract

As classrooms begin to adopt a greater number of digital technologies such as computers and tablets, it is important for educators to understand how effective such tools can be in aiding in the delivery of instruction to students who struggle in mathematics, such as those identified with a learning disability in mathematics. One digital‐based instructional strategy with a limited research base for students with a learning disability is video modeling. Through a single subject alternating treatments design, this study compared the use of video modeling to face‐to‐face explicit instruction for teaching geometry word problems to three secondary students with a learning disability in mathematics. Across 10 sessions of intervention, all three students demonstrated improved performance on all dependent variables with both interventions, while the explicit instruction condition produced slightly greater accuracy scores for two of the three students. The results and their implications for the field of mathematics are discussed.

Geometry Interventions for Students With Learning Disabilities: A Research Synthesis

“…Five additional studies (Cihak & Bowlin, 2009; C. M. Horner, 1984; Kozulin & Kazaz, 2016; Satsangi, Hammer, & Bouck, 2019; Satsangi, Hammer, & Hogan, 2019) were included in this synthesis. Except for one dissertation (C.…”

“…M. Horner, 1984), the studies were peer-reviewed articles. Seven studies used single-case designs (Cass et al, 2003; Cihak & Bowlin, 2009; Satsangi & Bouck, 2015; Satsangi, Hammer, & Bouck, 2019; Satsangi, Hammer, & Hogan, 2019; Strickland & Maccini, 2012; Xin & Hord, 2013) and two used quasi-experimental group designs (C. M. Horner, 1984; Kozulin & Kazaz, 2016).…”

“…M. Horner, 1984; Kozulin & Kazaz, 2016). Six of the single-case studies employed a multiple-baseline design, and one (i.e., Satsangi, Hammer, & Hogan, 2019) used an alternative treatment design. The total number of participants with LD was 71, and the researchers reported various LD identification criteria.…”

“…A3) with eighth and ninth graders with LD. Five studies (Cass et al, 2003; Kozulin & Kazaz, 2016; Satsangi & Bouck, 2015; Satsangi, Hammer, & Bouck, 2019; Satsangi, Hammer, & Hogan, 2019) included junior and high school participants with LD who learned to solve both perimeter and area (CCSSM 3. MD.…”

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

“…The authors also conducted a 2‐year hand search (February 2017 to February 2019) of journals that present the most relevant empirical investigations in the field of special education and intervention research for this review. By this means, four additional articles (Bottge, Cohen, & Choi, 2018; Satsangi, Hammer, & Evmenova, 2018; Satsangi, Hammer, & Hogan, 2018, 2019) were identified. Of the 1,012 articles, 153 duplicates were excluded.…”