See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319361532

Teaching Equivalent Fractions to Secondary Students With Disabilities via the

Virtual–Representational–Abstract Instructional Sequence

Article · August 2017

DOI: 10.1177/0162643417727291

CITATIONS READS

15 150

6 authors, including:

Emily C Bouck Laura Bassette

Michigan State University Ball State University
101 PUBLICATIONS   693 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   208 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jordan Shurr Jiyoon Park

Queen's University Michigan State University
18 PUBLICATIONS   132 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   120 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Functional mathematics View project

Transition View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Laura Bassette on 24 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article

Journal of Special Education Technology

2017, Vol. 32(4) 220-231
Teaching Equivalent Fractions to ª The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Secondary Students With Disabilities via DOI: 10.1177/0162643417727291
journals.sagepub.com/home/jst
the Virtual–Representational–Abstract
Instructional Sequence

Emily C. Bouck1, Laura Bassette2, Jordan Shurr3, Jiyoon Park1,

Jackie Kerr1, and Abbie Whorley4

Abstract
Fractions are an important mathematical concept; however, fractions are also a struggle for many students with disabilities. This
study explored a new framework adapted from the evidence-based concrete–representational–abstract framework: the virtual–
representational–abstract (VRA) framework. The VRA framework involves teaching students to solve mathematical problems
with virtual manipulative, then representations or drawings, and finally abstractly. A multiple probe across-students single-case
design was used to investigate the effectiveness of the VRA framework for finding equivalent fractions for three middle-school
students with disabilities. A functional relation was found between the VRA framework and students’ ability to solve equivalent
fractions. Implications related to the use of the VRA framework as a mathematics intervention for secondary students with
disabilities as well as directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords
middle school, mathematics, manipulatives, explicit instruction, single-case design

Fractions are an important but challenging mathematical skill Fraction Interventions

for many students (Hecht & Vagi, 2010; Mazzocco, Myers,
Lewis, Hanich, & Murphy, 2013). Students with disabilities,
who tend to experience greater struggles in mathematics in
general as compared to students without disabilities, often face
significant struggles with learning fractions (Hecht & Vagi,
2010; Misquitta, 2011). Fractions are an important and com-
plex foundational mathematical concept; a concept associated
with mathematical success in more advanced academic areas,
such as algebra, as well as daily living-related skills (e.g.,
baking, home repairs; Bailey, Hoard, Nugent, & Geary, 2012;
Booth & Newton, 2012; N. C. Jordan et al., 2013; National
Mathematics Advisory Panel [NMAP], 2008; Shin & Bryant,
2015). Instruction in fractions includes such concepts and skills
as fraction representation, fraction magnitude, equivalent frac-
tions, and operations with fractions; students can struggle with
any one of these aspects of fractions, complicating their ability to
use fractions to solve algebraic mathematical problems, such as
ratios and proportions (NMAP, 2008; Shin & Bryant, 2015).
Mathematics instruction involving fractions, according to the
Common Core State Standards, begins in third grade and con-
tinues through middle school (Common Core State Standards
Initiative, 2017; Council of Chief State School Officers &
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices,
2010; N. C. Jordan et al., 2013; Mazzocco et al., 2013).
Although less prominent in the research than other mathemat-
ical areas, evidence regarding interventions for teaching frac-
tions to students with disabilities do exist. A review of research
on fraction-related interventions for students struggling in
mathematics identified four categories of interventions includ-
ing the concrete–representational–abstract (CRA) framework,
anchored instruction (i.e., videodiscs presenting real-life
problem-solving situations), direct instruction, and strategy
instruction (e.g., mnemonic; Misquitta, 2011). In this review,
Misquitta (2011) determined the explicit teaching of frac-
tions—through the CRA framework, direct instruction, and
strategy instruction—resulted in increased student achievement
of fractions. The finding by Misquitta (2011) is not surprising,
given the pedagogical approach underlying the CRA
1
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
2
Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA
3
Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI, USA
4
Portland Public Schools, Portland, MI, USA
Corresponding Author:
Emily C. Bouck, Michigan State University, 620 Farm Lane, East Lansing,
MI 48824, USA.
Email: ecb@msu.edu
Bouck et al.
framework—explicit instruction—is a recommended and
evidence-based approach for students with high-incidence
and low-incidence disabilities (Browder et al., 2012; Doabler
& Fien, 2013; Gersten et al., 2009; Root, Browder, Saunders,
& Lo, 2017). Previous meta-analyses also indicated direct
instruction and strategy instruction were both beneficial prac-
tices for students with disabilities in mathematics (Swanson &
Hoskyn, 1998).
The CRA framework is a mathematical intervention used
across multiple mathematical domains (e.g., fractions, subtrac-
tion, multiplication, algebra), with decades of research support-
ing its use (e.g., Agrawal & Morin, 2016; Bouck, Satsangi, &
Park, 2017; Bouck & Park, in press; Butler, Miller, Crehan,
Babbitt, & Pierce, 2003; Flores, 2010; L. Jordan, Mercer, &
Miller, 1998; Miller & Mercer, 1993; Underhill, 1977). As
noted, the CRA framework involves the use of explicit instruc-
tion, which involves the teacher or instructor modeling and
using think aloud to make the mathematics explicit to the stu-
dent, then the teacher or instructor guiding or cuing the student
as they attempt to solve the mathematics, and finally allowing
the student to independently solve the mathematics. With the
CRA framework, students are systematically taught to solve
problems first with concrete manipulatives, then with represen-
tations or drawings, and finally abstractly by employing the
mathematics (Agrawal & Morin, 2016). The use of explicit
instruction is embedded throughout all phases of the CRA
framework—concrete manipulatives, representational, and
abstract. The CRA framework is considered an evidence-
based or research-informed practice for students with learning
disabilities and developmental disabilities, in general, although
limited literature examines the use of the CRA framework for
teaching fractions (Agrawal & Morin, 2016; Bouck, Satsangi,
& Park, 2017; Flores, Hinton, Strozier, & Terry, 2014).
Within the limited literature on the CRA framework and
fractions, L. Jordan, Mercer, and Miller (1998) conducted a
group design study involving fourth-grade students which
compared the CRA framework to textbook-based instruction.
Their study involved a small percentage of students with dis-
abilities in both conditions. The concrete manipulatives used in
the CRA framework included fraction circles and fraction
strips. L. Jordan et al. (1998) found students in both instruc-
tional groups improved from pretest to posttest but students
who received the CRA framework improved to a statistically
greater extent. Butler, Miller, Crehan, Babbitt, and Pierce
(2003) compared two similar frameworks for teaching fractions
to students. In a group design study involving middle school
students with disabilities, Butler et al. (2003) compared the
CRA framework to a framework involving just two phases:
representational and abstract (RA; i.e., similar to the CRA but
involving no concrete manipulatives). While students in both
groups improved on the posttest, from the pretest, the average
performance for the students in the CRA framework group was
higher than those in the RA framework for all subtests
administered. The difference was only statistically significant
for one subtest—the one that assessed whether students could
identify a fraction of a quantity (e.g., circle 34 of the 24 dots).
221
Finally, Watt and Therrien (2016) examined the CRA frame-
work to teach fractions in conjunction with preteaching with
sixth-grade students who received services for mathematics
within a response-to-intervention model and/or who had
Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals relative to
mathematics. The students who received instruction in CRA
along with preteaching improved in their understanding and
performance relative to fractions.
Technology
Existing CRA framework studies involving fractions focus on
low-tech concrete manipulatives (Butler et al., 2003; L. Jordan
et al., 1998). Yet, more sophisticated technology—such as vir-
tual manipulatives—is now available and can support student
understanding within different mathematical domains. The use
of virtual manipulatives can be accomplished through replacing
concrete manipulatives within the CRA framework with virtual
manipulatives, thereby generating a virtual–representational–
abstract (VRA) framework. Although, to date, no published
research exists on the VRA framework, researchers found stu-
dents’ mathematical performance improved in different mathe-
matical areas (e.g., area and perimeter, subtraction) with using
virtual manipulatives in and of themselves, and in comparison, to
concrete manipulatives (Bouck, Chamberlain, & Park, 2017;
Bouck, Satsangi, Taber-Doughty, & Courtney, 2014; Satsangi
& Bouck, 2015; Satsangi, Bouck, Taber-Doughty, Bofferding,
& Roberts, 2016).
Satsangi and Bouck (2015) found three secondary students
with learning disabilities successfully used online manipula-
tives from the National Library of Virtual Manipulatives to
solve area and perimeter problems; the use of the virtual manip-
ulatives was outside of a VRA framework. The students also
expressed positive feelings regarding the virtual manipulatives,
especially noting the virtual manipulatives allowed them to be
more independent in solving the mathematics. In another study,
three secondary students with learning disabilities preferred
online manipulatives to concrete manipulatives, although they
experienced similar success with virtual and concrete manip-
ulatives in solving linear algebra problems (Satsangi et al.,
2016). Finally, Bouck, Chamberlain, and Park (2017) found
both app-based and concrete base-10 blocks were similar suc-
cessful tools in supporting three secondary students with mild
intellectual disability and learning disabilities in solving multi-
digit subtraction with regrouping problems. These studies high-
light the potential for more sophisticated technology—such as
online or app-based manipulatives—to support students with
disabilities in mathematics.
Much of the previous existing literature on virtual manip-
ulatives, aside from Bouck, Chamberlain, and Park (2017),
evaluated online (i.e., web based) manipulatives. However,
app-based manipulatives may possess benefits over concrete
and online manipulatives. App-based manipulatives are appli-
cations involving virtual manipulatives installed on devices,
such as tablets, and are not dependent on an Internet (Bouck,
Working, & Bone, 2017). In addition, app-based manipulatives
222
are more interactive than online web-based manipulatives, as
they often require physical manipulation by way of touch-
dependent smart devices (Brasel & Gips, 2015). Given the
benefits associated with app-based manipulatives and research
suggesting virtual manipulatives are just as effective as con-
crete manipulatives—and more often preferred (Bouck, Cham-
berlain, & Park, 2017; Bouck et al., 2014; Satsangi & Bouck,
2015; Satsangi et al. (2016)), this study sought to explore an
adapted framework for teaching fraction equivalence to stu-
dents with disabilities: the VRA. The authors sought to answer
the following research questions in this study: (a) To what
extent do middle school students with disabilities improve their
performance finding equivalent fractions—up through
twelfths—following lessons via the VRA framework?; (b) To
what extent do middle school students with disabilities main-
tain their performance finding equivalent fractions—up
through twelfths—after instruction via the VRA framework?;
and (c) What is the perception of middle school students with
disabilities regarding the VRA framework?
Method
Participants
This study involved three middle school students with disabil-
ities. All three students were educated in the same pullout
mathematics class taught by a special education teacher.
Sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade students were educated
together in the class. Per teacher-provided information and
researcher observations, the curriculum was not grade-specific,
or following grade-specific standards, but rather focused on
lower grade-level content, including but not limited to, word
problems, geometry (e.g., identifying shapes, symmetry), and
fractions. At the time of the study, the teacher had already com-
pleted her planned instruction on fractions, meaning she covered
finding equivalent fractions earlier in the academic year.
To be a participant in this study, a student had to meet the
following criteria: (a) enrolled in the one pullout mathematics
class taught by the special education teacher, (b) teacher rec-
ommendation based on struggling with previous mathematics
content (i.e., equivalent fractions), (c) failed to correctly
answer fraction operation questions on the KeyMath3 assess-
ment administered by researchers, (d) demonstrated a basic
understanding of fractions, such as can identify that a shaded
area of an object is 13 or 25, for eample, and (e) possessed suffi-
cient fine motor skills for using virtual manipulatives.
Cora. Cora was an eighth-grade Caucasian student who turned
13 during the study. Cora received special education services
under the identification of learning disability in reading,
written expression, and mathematical reasoning. Cora was
identified with a learning disability in the first grade. Her
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition
(WISC-IV; Wechsler, 2004) Full-Scale IQ was 80: a score
of 85 for verbal comprehension, 79 for perceptual reasoning,
88 for working memory, and 85 for processing speed. On the
Journal of Special Education Technology 32(4)
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition
(Psychological Corporation, 2009), Cora’s overall math score
was 66, and on the Comprehensive Mathematics Abilities Test
(Hresko & Schlieve, 2002), her global math ability was 54.
Throughout her school year, mathematics was noted as a
challenge for Cora. Cora’s mathematics IEP goal was,
“ . . . will successfully solve math word problems that include
four operations that involve decimals and fractions 80% of the
time or greater.” Cora was to take the state standardized
assessment with accommodations. The specific accommoda-
tions on the mathematics portion included extended time,
auditory text, and small group setting. Cora’s IEP stated that
she was to receive services in the resource room program
0.5–1 hr per day. On the KeyMath3, administered by the
researchers, Cora’s raw numeration scores was 16 (scale score
of 4), which was a 2.8 grade equivalency or 8:4 (year:month)
age equivalence. On the addition and subtraction subtest, Cora
failed to answer any triple-digit addition and decimal and
fraction addition and subtraction questions; her last successful
response involved double-digit addition.
Drew. Drew was an eighth-grade Caucasian student who turned
14 during the study. Drew received special education services
under the category of other health impairment (OHI) and hear-
ing impairment. According to Drew’s file, he was eligible
under the category of OHI due to a medical diagnosis of
DiGeorge syndrome. He was also identified as having a mild
hearing impairment. Drew’s file lacked evaluation data; it
contained no IQ or achievement assessments. He had moved
to the state in third grade but received special education in his
previous state. Drew’s IEP indicated he was to take the state
standardized assessment with accommodations. Accommoda-
tions listed for the mathematics portion included testing in a
small group setting and access to an audio/digital/reader for
mathematics. Drew’s IEP also stated he was to receive services
in the mild intellectual disability program class (i.e., the self-
contained class at the school) for 10–15 hr per week. On his
current IEP, Drew did not have any mathematics goals listed.
On the KeyMath3, which the researchers administered, Drew’s
raw numeration score (18; scaled score of 5) was equivalent to
3.5 for grade and 8:11 for age. On the addition and subtraction
subtest, Drew did not attempt any decimal and fraction addition
and subtraction problems.
Evan. Evan was a 13-year-old Caucasian seventh-grade student.
Evan was identified as having a mild intellectual disability.
From the WISC-IV (Wechsler, 2004), Evan’s full scale IQ was
70, with a 63 for verbal comprehension, 84 for perceptual
reasoning, 83 for working memory, and 75 for processing
speed. Evan’s Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement,
Second Edition (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004) achievement
scores in mathematics included a composition score of 66, a
71 for math concepts and applications, and a 69 for math com-
putation. On the Vineland-II Adaptive Behavior Assessment
(Sparrow, Cicchetti, & Balla, 2005), Evan’s composite score
was 75; his communication score was 65, daily living skills
Bouck et al.
score was 65, and socialization score was 100. Prior to the
identification of a mild intellectual disability in third grade,
Evan was identified as a student with a learning disability in
mathematics and reading. Evan had a chronic issue with
absences throughout his school years. Evan’s IEP indicated
he was to receive services in the mild intellectual disability
program (the school’s self-contained program) 10–15 hr per
week and was slated to take the state’s alternate assessment.
On the KeyMath3 administered by researchers, Evan’s raw
numeration score was 12 (scale score of 3, 1.8 grade equiva-
lency and 7:3 age equivalency). Evan stopped at decimal and
fraction addition and subtraction on the KeyMath3.
Setting
The researchers conducted the study in a public middle school
in a rural town in a Midwestern state. There was a total of 439
students in sixth, seventh, and eighth grades in the school. The
ethnicity of students’ population was as follows: 95% Cauca-
sian, 3% Hispanic, and less than 1% multiracial, African Amer-
ican, and Alaska Native/American Indian. Of the total
population, 26% of the students were eligible to receive free
and reduced lunch. About 8% of the student population was
identified with a disability.
The researchers conducted all sessions (i.e., baseline, inter-
vention, maintenance) in the hallway, which was just outside of
the students’ special education classroom and occurred at the
same time as the students’ self-contained mathematics class. It
was generally quiet in the hallway because the data collection
occurred at the time that all students were in their classes. In the
hallway, there was one large table with four chairs. All parti-
cipants worked with a researcher in a one-on-one format
throughout the study at the large table.
Materials
Learning sheets and an app-based manipulative were used as
materials during the study. A learning sheet was used during
each intervention session and consisted of two problems the
researcher modeled, two problems for which the researcher
cued and guided the student, and five problems for which the
student solved independently. The equivalent fraction prob-
lems for each phase of the study were placed on separate sheets
of the 8.5  11-in. paper (e.g., 23 ¼ 6), meaning each learning
sheet was three pages in length—one sheet provided the two
problems used in the modeling portion, one sheet provided the
two problems used in the guided portion, and one sheet pro-
vided the five problems used during the independent portion
(i.e., served as the probe). Although individual questions were
repeated, no learning sheet was repeated and all learning sheets
were unique. To ensure equal representational of the equivalent
fraction problems across the possible fractions involving
halves, thirds, fourths, fifths, sixths, eighths, tenths, and
twelfths, the first author created a spreadsheet of all possible
problems and then randomly selected problems, eliminating a
problem from being selected again until all other equivalent
223
fraction problems were selected on an assessment. During each
session, students were provided the learning sheets and a pencil
in order for them to solve the problems.
For the virtual phase of the VRA framework, students were
given the fraction app Fraction Tiles by Brainingcamp (2017).
The app provides students with fraction tiles representing
1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 10
1 1
, and 12 . Each fraction tile is a different color.
Students can move the fraction tiles, located on the left side of
the screen, onto a working blank white space. When a fraction
tile touches another, they click together. The app also allows
students to write with digital white board markers and delete
individual items or clear the whole screen. During the modeling
portion of the explicit instruction of the virtual phase of the
VRA framework, students were taught how to use the app.
Fraction equivalent problems only involved the fraction
denominators available on the app—halves, thirds, fourths,
fifths, sixths, eighths, tenths, and twelfths.
Independent and Dependent Variables
The VRA framework was the independent variable in the
study. Students used the Fraction Tiles app (Brainingcamp,
2017) during the virtual phase of the VRA. During the repre-
sentational phase, students were taught to draw fractions, such
as one half and three sixth, via paper and pencil. In the abstract
phase, students solved the equivalent fraction problems using
the mathematics and did not use an app or a drawing to support
their thinking. The dependent variable was the percentage of
correctly solved equivalence fraction problems (out of five)
during the independent portion of the VRA framework.
Experimental Design
Researchers used a multiple probe across-participants design to
determine the effectiveness of VRA framework for solving
equivalent fractions (Gast & Ledford, 2014). The researchers
selected the multiple probe across-participants design because
all participants struggled with the fraction equivalence concept,
the concept of equivalent fraction was not deemed reversible,
and the researchers wanted to reduce the number of baseline
sessions students needed to complete (Gast & Ledford, 2014).
Use of the multiple probe across-participants design is consis-
tent with the typical design used in the multiple decades worth
of CRA single-case studies (e.g., Agrawal & Morin, 2016;
Bouck & Park, in press; Bouck, Satsangi, & Park, 2017; Butler
et al., 2003; Flores, 2010; L. Jordan et al., 1998; Miller &
Mercer, 1993). All three students began baseline simultane-
ously, and each student completed a minimum of three baseline
sessions.
The first student, Cora, moved into the virtual phase of
intervention after she met the baseline criteria: 80% of the data
falling within 25% of the median and a trend of zero-celeration
or deceleration (Gast & Ledford, 2014). When Cora completed
her first intervention session, the other two students—Drew
and Evan—each completed another baseline session; likewise,
for Evan when Drew, the second student who entered
224
intervention completed his first intervention session. When
Cora transitioned from the virtual phase of the VRA framework
to the representational phase, both Drew and Evan each com-
pleted another baseline session. Similarly, when Drew transi-
tioned to the representational phase of the VRA framework
from the virtual phase, Evan completed his last baseline session
and then entered intervention himself. Consistent with the CRA
framework to transition from one phase to another (i.e., virtual
to representational and representational to abstract), an individ-
ual student needed to have 80% or higher accuracy during three
sessions (e.g., Mancl, Miller, & Kennedy, 2012). Also, consis-
tent with the CRA framework, if a student scored less than 80%
on a given learning sheet, she or he repeated that learning sheet
the next session.
Procedures
The researchers collected the data in the hallway just outside of
the special education classroom. All students worked one-on-
one with research team members. Three members of the
research team delivered the intervention. The first author
developed and trained the subsequent two interventionists,
each who watched the first author delivered at least one inter-
vention for each phase as well as achieved the mastery set
during training (i.e., deliver the intervention to the first author
as a simulation). The first author is a special education faculty
member who specializes in mathematical intervention research
for students with disabilities. The other interventionists were
education doctoral students.
The study lasted 15 weeks and sessions occurred 1–2 days per
week, except for over winter break. Every session was adminis-
tered within the 61-min math period, although the length of
intervention sessions was generally 10–15 min, inclusive of the
modeling, guiding, and independent portion of the explicit
instruction. Each student experienced no more than two sessions
per day, and no student received instruction on equivalent
fractions or via the VRA or CRA framework during the study.
Preassessment
Prior to baseline, the researchers administered a five-question
preassessment to determine whether the students were eligible
for the equivalence fraction study. Specifically, students were
assessed on whether they could identify fractions when pro-
vided an image of a circle sliced and then a portion of that
circle colored in. All students achieved 100% accuracy on
identifying fractions.
Baseline
Each student completed a minimum of three baseline sessions.
During baseline, students were asked to solve five equivalent
fraction problems (e.g., 23 ¼ 12) via paper and pencil. Students
solved these problems without any supports, tools, or prompts.
The first student moved into intervention when she or he com-
pleted at least three baseline sessions; the baseline data were
Journal of Special Education Technology 32(4)
stable and had a zero-celeration or deceleration trend. A base-
line of at least three sessions is consistent with the Cook et al.
(2014) quality indicators for single-case research. The two
subsequent students moved into baseline after the previous
student transitioned from the virtual to the representational
phase, and his/her baseline data were stable with a zero-
celeration or deceleration trend.
Intervention
Consistent with the CRA framework (c.f., Mancl et al., 2012),
the VRA framework intervention administered was done via
explicit instruction. Regardless of the phase—virtual, representa-
tional, or abstract—the researcher modeled two problems with
the appropriate tool (e.g., app [virtual], drawing [representa-
tional], just math [abstract]) and used think aloud to make her
approach and strategies for solving the problems explicit to the
student (Doabler & Fien, 2013). Next, the researcher allowed the
student to attempt two problems, but provided prompts and cues
as needed. Finally, the student solved five problems indepen-
dently; the dependent variables of accuracy and task completion
time were only assessed on the independent problems (i.e., the
independent portion of explicit instruction) for each phase (i.e.,
virtual, representational, abstract) of the study.
Intervention itself consisted of nine learning sheets,
although learning sheets could be repeated in a subsequent
session if a student failed to achieve 80% accuracy or higher.
Three of the learning sheets involved the use of the app-based
manipulative, three representations or drawings, and three
solving the problems with just the mathematics. When students
achieved 80% or higher accuracy for three sessions, she or he
transitioned from one phase to the next. Students were not
provided with any accommodations (e.g., calculator) during
the intervention.
Virtual. The first three learning sheets involved determining
equivalent fractions using a virtual manipulative. For this
study, researchers selected the app Fraction Tiles by Braining-
camp (2017; see Figure 1). During each session involving the
app-based manipulative, the researcher modeled how to use the
app to solve two problems. The researcher demonstrated drag-
ging the 1 tile onto the white space and then the tiles represent-
ing the first fraction. Hence, if the problem was, for example,
2
3 ¼ 12, the researcher pulled out the 1 block and right below—
lined up—pulled out two one-third blocks and snapped them
together. Since the problem inquired two thirds was equivalent
to how many twelfths, the researcher modeled pulling out
twelfth blocks and lining them up under the 2 one thirds until
they were even. Hence, for this problem, eight one-twelfth
blocks would align under the 2 one thirds. The researcher used
think aloud to verbally articulate her mathematical thoughts
and strategies while using the app-based manipulative. Next,
the researcher allowed students to attempt to answer problems
using the app-based manipulative and provided prompts or
cues as needed (e.g., “make sure they line up”). After two
guided problems, the student independently solved five
Bouck et al.
Figure 1. Images of virtual and representational phases of VRA. VRA ¼ virtual–representational–abstract.
problems using the app-based manipulative; the accuracy data
on the independent portion was the dependent variable.
Representational. After a student successfully completed three
learning sheets with 80% accuracy, she or he moved into the
representational phase. As with the virtual phase, the researcher
modeled for two problems, guided for two problems, and then
the student solved five problems independently. However,
instead of an app to support the solving, representations (or
drawings) were used. Specifically, the researcher modeled and
guided students to draw fraction strips (refer to Figure 1). The
researcher would begin by modeling and verbally articulating
the process in a think aloud to draw a strip and label it as 1.
Next, the researcher drew a same-sized strip immediately
below the 1 whole strip and touching. The researcher divided
this strip evenly into the number of pieces needed, as reflected
by the denominator. For example, with the problem 23 ¼ 12
the researcher divided the strip into three even pieces; she sub-
sequently used a colored pencil to shade two of those pieces. The
researcher then drew another same-sized strip immediately
below this one and touching. The researcher divided this strip
evenly into the number of pieces needed per the denominator
(i.e., 12). She then colored the number of pieces needed with a
different colored pencil until the two shaded portions aligned
and counting the number of pieces. During the think aloud
portion, the researcher presented students with strategies for
evenly dividing different fractions, such as by noticing the rela-
tionship between fractions (i.e., halves is easy to divide and if
I divide each of the halves in half, I get four even pieces or
fourths). For fifths—an anticipated challenge—the researcher
suggested students first draw fourths and recognize that fifths
must be smaller than fourths and use the fourths to estimate
dividing the strip into five even pieces.
Abstract. Researchers conducted the last three sessions with
only using mathematical reasoning to find equivalent fractions.
The researcher modeled how to solve two problems abstractly,
that is, finding the relationship between the two denominators
225
and understanding that equivalent fractions indicate that the
action one does to the denominator must also be done to
the numerator. For example, with 23 ¼ 12, 3 is multiplied by
4 to get 12 and hence 2 must be multiplied by 4 to get 8
(23 ¼ 12
8
). Students were taught to use multiplication fact fami-
lies: 3  __ ¼ 12; hence 12 O 3 ¼ __. After modeling two
problems, the research provided prompts and cues, as needed,
while students solved two problems. Finally, each student
solved five problems independently without using the app-
based manipulative or drawing.
Maintenance
Two weeks after intervention, each student participated in two
maintenance sessions. During maintenance, each student was
provided with five problems involving finding equivalent
fractions. Researchers did not provide students with any
manipulatives, feedback, or prompts.
Interobserver Agreement and Treatment Fidelity
Researchers calculated interobserver agreement (IOA) on
student accuracy for a minimum of 33% of each phase of the
study and phase of intervention (i.e., virtual, representational,
and abstract). To calculate IOA, a second observer (one of the
interventionists who did not deliver the intervention) subse-
quently scored the independent data probe. IOA was found
by summing the number of agreements and dividing that by
the number of agreements plus disagreements; the quotient was
then multiplied by 100 to provide a percentage. For each
student, for each phase and intervention phase, IOA was 100%.
To assess for implementation fidelity, researchers com-
pleted a checklist for each intervention session. The checklist
focused on whether (a) student was given the appropriate phase
material (i.e., app-based manipulative, drawing, or using
abstract thinking), (b) student used the material to solve the
problems, (c) researcher used explicit instruction to deliver the
intervention, and (d) researcher recorded task completion time
226 Journal of Special Education Technology 32(4)

during the independent phase. Treatment fidelity was 100% for

all students across all phases of the intervention. 100
90

Accuracy (Percentage)
80
Social Validity 70
60
Social validity interviews were conducted with the three *
50
students at the conclusion of the study. The researcher indivi- 40
#
dually asked each student questions regarding which phase of 30
the VRA framework they preferred the most as well as their 20
10 Cora
least favorite. Each student was also asked to select a phase 0
(i.e., app-based, representational, or abstract) for his/her use in 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
the classroom, if given a choice by his/her teacher. Sessions

100
Data Analysis 90 * #
80

Accuracy (Percentage)
To analyze the data, researchers conducted visual analysis of
the graphed data. To analyze for stability, the researchers 70
60
applied the 80-25 rule, meaning data were deemed stable if 50
80% of the data fell within 25% of the median (Gast & Spriggs, 40
2014). To analyze for trend, the researchers applied the split- 30
middle method (White & Haring, 1980). With the split-middle 20
10 Drew
method, the researchers first found the middle point and then
the mid-rate and the mid-date for each phase (i.e., baseline, 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
intervention). The researchers drew a line between the mid- Sessions
rate and mid-date to determine whether the line was accelerat-
ing, decelerating, or zero-celerating (Gast & Spriggs, 2014). 100
To analyze for effect size and corroborate the visual analy- 90 * #
sis, the researchers elected to use Tau-U. Researchers selected 80
Accuracy (Percentage)

Tau-U, given its increase prevalence as an acceptable effect 70

60
size measure in single-case research and suggested ability to
50
overcome the limitations of other measures of effect, such as 40
overlap (Parker, Vannest, Davis, & Sauber, 2011; Rakap, 30
2015). Researchers used the online Tau-U calculator (see 20
10 Evan
http://www.singlecaseresearch.org/calculators/tau-u; Parker
et al., 2011) to calculate the effect size between baseline and 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
intervention. To interpret the effect size, researchers used the Sessions
standard demarcations of less than or equal to 65% as a small
effect, 66–92% a medium effect, and equal to or greater than
Figure 2. Accuracy (percentage) of problem solving.
93% a large effect (Parker, Vannest, & Brown, 2009).

session, resulting in 13 sessions. Yet, visual analysis

Results
Overall, each student improved in terms of accuracy in solving
equivalent fraction problems from baseline throughout the
VRA framework intervention (see Figure 2 and Table 1).
A functional relation was found between the VRA framework and
the accuracy in terms of solving equivalent fraction problems.
Cora
revealed zero overlap between intervention sessions and
baseline sessions. Intervention data were stable (84.6% fell
within 25% of the median) with a decelerating trend. The
Tau-U was 100%, suggesting for Cora the VRA framework
was a highly effective intervention. During the maintenance
phase, Cora maintained her success in intervention (100%
and 80%); there was no overlap of data between baseline
and maintenance.

Cora answered zero equivalent fraction questions correctly

in any of her three baseline sessions; her baseline data were
stable and zero-celerating. When she started baseline, Cora
experienced a gradual effect; her first intervention session in
the virtual phase was 40%, but her next was 80% (refer to
Figure 2 and Table 1). During intervention, Cora repeated 1
virtual session, 2 representational sessions, and 1 abstract
Drew
Drew’s baseline data were stable with a zero-celeration trend
(refer to Figure 2 and Table 1). Drew completed 11 interven-
tion sessions; he repeated 2 sessions in the representational
phase but 0 in either virtual or abstract. His first virtual inter-
vention session was 80%, followed by 100% for his second
Bouck et al. 227

Table 1. Data Analysis Summary of the VRA Instructional Sequence Across Participants.

Intervention

Measure Baseline Intervention (Overall) Virtual Representational Abstract Maintenance

Cora
Range 0 40–100% 40–100% 60–100% 40–100% 80–100%
Mean 0 76.9% 80% 76% 75% 90%
Median 0 80% 90% 80% 80% 90%
Stability Stable Stable Variable Stable Variable —
Trend Zero-celerating Decelerating Accelerating Decelerating Accelerating —
Tau-Ua — 100% — — — —
PNDb — 100% — — — 100%
No. of sessions 3 13 4 5 4 2
No. of lessons repeated — 4 1 2 1 —
Drew
Range 20–40% 40–100% 80–100% 40–100% 100% 100%
Mean 36.7% 83.3% 93.3% 76% 100% 100%
Median 40 100% 100% 80% 100% 100%
Stability Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable —
Trend Zero-celerating Zero-celerating Accelerating Decelerating Zero-celerating —
Tau-Ua — 94.2% — — — —
PND — 90.9% — — — 100%
No. of sessions 3 11 3 5 3 2
No. of lessons repeated — 2 0 2 0 —
Evan
Range 0–40% 60–100% 100% 60–100% 100% 40%
Mean 11.4% 94% 100% 85% 100% 40%
Median 0% 100% 100% 90% 100% 40%
Stability Variable Stable Stable Variable Stable —
Trend Zero-celerating Zero-celerating Zero-celerating Decelerating Zero-celerating —
Tau-Ua — 100% — — — —
PND — 100% — — — 0%
No. of sessions 3 10 3 4 3 2
No. of lessons repeated — 1 0 1 0 —
Note. VRA ¼ virtual–representational–abstract.
a
Tau-U between baseline and intervention (overall). bPND refers to Percent of Nonoverlapping Data.

intervention session. Visual analysis revealed overlap data for
one point between baseline and intervention. Intervention data
were stable (81.8% falling within 25% of the median) with a
zero-celeration trend. The Tau-U was 94.2%, suggesting the
VRA framework was a highly effective intervention for Drew.
During both maintenance sessions, Drew scored 100%.
Evan
Evan’s baseline scores ranged between 0 and 40%; the data
were variable but with a zero-celeration trend. Evan experi-
enced an immediate effect from his last baseline session
(0%) to his first intervention session (100%; refer to Figure 2
and Table 1). Evan completed 10 intervention sessions; he only
repeated 1 intervention session during the representational
phase. The intervention data were stable with a zero-celeration
trend. The Tau-U was 100%, suggesting the VRA framework
was a highly effective intervention for Evan. There was no over-
lap of Evan’s data between baseline and intervention. However,
Evan’s accuracy decreased during maintenance; his accuracy
was 40% for both sessions.
Social Validity
All three students spoke positively about the virtual—app-
based manipulatives—phase and enjoyed using the app during
the sessions. However, the students were mixed with regard to
their preference. Cora and Drew both preferred the thinking or
brain phase (i.e., abstract), as they phrased it, although Cora
was clear that the app helped her to learn at first. Cora and
Drew both also felt the drawing or representational phase was
the one they liked the least. They expressed that it was “tough
to make equal parts” and “make them perfect.” Evan, on the
other hand, actually preferred the representational phase and
expressed that he found it the easiest to understand. He also
indicated that saw himself as an artist and connected with
drawing the fractions. Evan indicated he disliked the phase
without the app or drawings (i.e., abstract phase); he felt “it
was hard because you had to think about what you were doing.”
Discussion
This study explored the effectiveness of the VRA framework to
teach equivalent fraction to three middle-school students with
228
disabilities. A functional relation was found between the
intervention and student acquisition of fraction equivalency; the
Tau-U effect size for each student also suggested a highly effec-
tive intervention. All three students’ performance improved
from baseline during the VRA framework intervention, and the
abstract phase was maintained for two of the three students.
Consistent with previous literature involving the CRA
framework, two of the students experienced an immediate
effect from baseline to intervention (c.f., Bouck, Park, & Nick-
ell, 2017; Flores, 2010). The exception to the immediate effect
was Cora whose effect was more gradual (0–40%), who was
also the least successful in solving equivalent fractions during
baseline, suggesting she had the greatest struggles and lack of
knowledge in the content (m ¼ 0). Also, consistent with previ-
ous research regarding the CRA framework, each student
needed few lesson repeated (c.f., Bouck, Park, & Nickell,
2017; Mancl et al., 2012). Evan needed one lesson repeated
during the representational phase and Drew needed two during
the representational phase. Cora struggled to a greater extent
through all phases of the VRA framework, needing one lesson
repeated during the virtual phase, two during the representa-
tional phase, and one during the abstract phase.
Of the three phases of the VRA framework, the hardest
phase for each student was the representational. The represen-
tational phase was also the least favorite for Cora and Drew.
Not only was the representational phase the only phase that all
students needed at least one lesson repeated, it was the only
phase within the VRA framework that a decelerating trend
occurred for each student’s data (refer to Table 1). Students
struggled to equally divide the fraction tiles into the required
number of pieces; the lack of equally divided pieces impacted
the results to determine the equivalence when comparing
shaded portions. Despite the think aloud and modeling during
the representational phase, students struggled with the relation-
ships between numbers, such as how to take halves and make
twelves or fifths and make tenths. Part of the students’ struggle
was their lack of fluency (i.e., speed) with knowing factors and
multiples.
Implications for Practice
This study holds implications for practice. For one, it suggests
the VRA framework supports students with disabilities in
learning equivalent fractions. Hence, the VRA framework is
an option as a mathematical intervention for students with dis-
abilities in addition to the CRA framework. A teacher may
want to consider the VRA framework as a potential alternative
to the CRA framework, given secondary students with disabil-
ities may find concrete manipulatives stigmatizing and less
socially desirable. App-based manipulatives and an iPad may
be more socially acceptable to secondary students (Bouck,
Chamberlain, & Park, 2017; Satsangi & Bouck, 2015; Satsangi
et al., 2016). Relatedly, as schools increasingly implement
tablets as technology, education-related apps are being devel-
oped and educators are forced to determine what apps are high
quality to use (Bouck, Satsangi, & Flangan, 2016; Haßler,
Journal of Special Education Technology 32(4)
Major, & Hennessy, 2016). The app explored in this study—
Fraction Tiles (Brainingcamp, 2017)—was a quality app that
supported students in solving equivalent fractions. Given the
increased attention in schools toward tablets and apps, educa-
tors should seek to use apps that have been explored in
research.
Another implication for practice is the benefit of explicit
instruction. Cora and Drew, although needing lessons repeated
during intervention, were successful in maintaining the ability
to find equivalent fractions (m ¼ 90% and 100%, respectively).
Explicit instruction is considered an evidence-based practice in
mathematics and is recommended for use with students with a
variety of disabilities in mathematics (Browder et al., 2012;
Doabler & Fien, 2013; Gersten et al., 2009; National Center
on Intensive Intervention, 2016; Root et al., 2017). Evan, on the
other hand, struggled with maintenance, despite needing the
fewest lessons repeated. Evan clearly benefited from explicit
instruction. Although the study was systemically implemented
(i.e., transition from one phase to another after 80% accuracy
for three sessions), perhaps some students need a longer
intervention time that delivers explicit instruction to aid in
maintaining one’s performance.
Limitations and Future Directions
This research study, like all research studies, had limitations.
One limitation involved some initial variability in Evan’s base-
line data; however, as evident by the graph, the trend for the
data was zero-celerating and decelerating from the highest as
he moved into intervention. Another limitation involved the
use of the representational phase. Although the representational
stage is a hallmark of the CRA framework, drawing fractions
tiles was challenging for the students and often frustrating.
Each of the three students needed to repeat at least one session
of the representational phase; for Drew and Evan, it was the
only phase in which two and one sessions, respectively, needed
to be repeated. Researchers should seek to conduct a study
involving just a virtual–abstract framework and removing the
representational phase when solving problems with fractions.
Other limitations with the study involved that the interven-
tion was delivered one-on-one by a researcher and not by the
students’ classroom teacher. Hence, the intervention was
removed from typical classroom instruction and the capacity
of the teacher was not enhanced to deliver the VRA framework.
The small number of problems during the probes (i.e., indepen-
dent portion of explicit instruction) also served as a limitation.
Each probe consisted of five problems; the limited number of
responses per probe can result in a greater opportunity for data
being variable rather than stable. Researchers should consider
expanding the number of problems per probe in future research.
A final limitation involved that all three students represented
diverse disability categories. However, all students were served
by the same special education teacher in the same self-
contained mathematics class. And, an important distinction in
special education is that services are not provided by disability
Bouck et al.
category but by needs; all students had similar mathematical
struggles and needs (Yell, 2012).
Future research should seek to replicate the findings of this
study and, as previously noted, expand the intervention to
examine just a virtual–abstract framework relative to finding
equivalent fractions. Relatedly, researchers may want to
explore other single-case designs as well as increase the num-
ber of data points per phase, such as having five data points per
baseline and each VRA framework phase (i.e., virtual, repre-
sentational, abstract) per student. Researchers should also con-
duct group design research, like Butler et al. (2003), which
compares the VRA framework to the CRA framework or, at
a minimum, compare the effectiveness of concrete and virtual
faction tiles for students with disabilities. The VRA framework
was found to be beneficial in this study and that app-based
manipulatives can be less stigmatizing and more socially
acceptable for secondary students with disabilities (Bouck,
Chamberlain, & Park, 2017; Satsangi & Bouck, 2015).
Researchers should seek to systemically compare the VRA and
CRA frameworks for students with disabilities.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflict of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: An internal
grant was awarded to the first author from her university to support the
research.
References
Agrawal, J., & Morin, L. L. (2016). Evidence-based practices: Appli-
cations of concrete representational abstract framework across
math concepts for students with disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 31, 34–44. doi:10.111/ldrp.12093
Bouck, E. C., Satsangi, R., Taber-Doughty, 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
Disabilities, 44, 180–193.
Satsangi, R., & Bouck, E. C. (2015). Using virtual manipulative
instruction to teach the concepts of area and perimeter to secondary
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,
38, 174–186.
Bouck, E. C., Satsangi, R., & Flanagan, S. M. (2016). Focus on Inclu-
sive Education: Evaluating apps for students with disabilities: Sup-
porting academic access and success. Childhood Education, 92,
324–328.
Satsangi, R., Bouck, E. C., Taber-Doughty, T., Bofferding, L., &
Roberts, C. A. (2016). Comparing the effectiveness of virtual and
concrete manipulatives to learn algebra for secondary students
with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39,
240–253.
Bouck, E. C., Working, C., & Bone, E. (in press). Manipulative apps
to support students with disabilities in mathematics. Intervention in
229
School & Clinic [Advanced Online Publication]. DOI: 10.1177/
1053451217702115
Bouck, E. C., Chamberlain, C., & Park, J. (2017). Concrete and app-
based manipulatives to support students with disabilities with sub-
traction. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, 52, 317–331.
Bouck, E. C., & Park, J. (in press). A systematic review of the liter-
ature on mathematics manipulatives to support students with dis-
abilities. Education and Treatment of Children.
Bouck, E. C., Satsangi, R., & Park, J. (2017). The concrete-represen-
tational-abstract approach for students with disabilities: An evi-
dence-based practice synthesis. Remedial and Special Education.
[Advanced Online Publication]. DOI: 10.1177/074193251772171
Bailey, D. H., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Geary, D. C. (2012).
Competence with fractions predicts gains in mathematics achieve-
ment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 447–455.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.06.004
Booth, J. L., & Newton, K. J. (2012). Fractions: Could they really be
the gatekeeper’s doorman? Contemporary Educational Psychol-
ogy, 37, 247–253. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.07.001
Bouck, E. C., Park, J., & Nickell, B. (2017). Using the concrete-
representational-abstract approach to support students with intel-
lectual disability to solve change-making problems. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 60, 24–36.
Brainingcamp. (2017). Fraction Tiles. Retrieved from https://itunes.
apple.com/us/app/fraction-tiles-manipulative/id1111230448?
mt¼8
Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. (2015). Interface psychology: Touchscreens
change attribute importance, decision criteria, and behavior in
online choice. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
18, 534–538. doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0546
Browder, D. M., Jimenez, B. A., Spooner, F., Saunders, A., Hudson, M.,
& Bethune, K. S. (2012). Early numeracy instruction for students
with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. Research &
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 37, 308–320.
Butler, F. M., Miller, S. P., Crehan, K., Babbitt, B., & Pierce, T.
(2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabil-
ities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 18, 99–111.
Cook, B. G., Buysse, V., Klingner, J., Landrum, T. J., McWilliam, R.
A., Tankersley, M., & Test, D. W. (2014). CEC’s standards for
classifying the evidence base of practices in special education.
Remedial and Special Education, 36, 220–234. doi:10.1177/
0741932514557271
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2017). Standards for math-
ematical practice. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/Math/
Practice/
Council of Chief State School Officers & National Governors Asso-
ciation Center for Best Practices. (2010). Common Core State
Standards for mathematics: Common Core State Standards
Initiative. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_
Mathematics%20Standards.pdf
Doabler, C. T., & Fien, H. (2013). Explicit mathematics instruction:
What teachers can do for teaching students with mathematics dif-
ficulties? Intervention for School and Clinic, 48, 276–285. doi:10.
1177/1053451212473141
230
Flores, M. M. (2010). Using the concrete-representational-abstract
sequence to teach subtraction with regrouping to students at risk
for failure. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 195–207. doi:10.
1177/0741932508327467
Flores, M. M., Hinton, V. M., Strozier, S. D., & Terry, S. L. (2014).
Using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence and the stra-
tegic instruction model to teach computation to students with autism
spectrum disorders and developmental disabilities. Education and
Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 547–554.
Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (2014). Single case research methodol-
ogy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gast, D. L., & Spriggs, A. D. (2014). Visual analysis of graphic data.
In D. L. Gast (Ed.), Single subject research methodology in beha-
vioral sciences (pp. 176–210). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gersten, R. M., Chard, D., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., &
Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning
disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review
of Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242. doi:10.3102/
0034654309334431
Haßler, B., Major, L., & Hennessy, S. (2016). Tablet use in schools: A
critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 32, 139–156. doi:10.1111/jcal.12123
Hecht, S. A., & Vagi, K. J. (2010). Sources of group and individual
differences in emerging fraction skills. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102, 843–859. doi:10.1037/a0019824
Hresko, W. P., & Schlieve, P. L. (2002). Comprehensive Mathematics
Abilities Test (CMAT). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Jordan, L., Miller, M. D., & Mercer, C. D. (1998). The effects of
concrete to semiconcrete to abstract instruction in the acquisition
and retention of fraction concepts and skills. Learning Disabilities,
9, 115–122.
Jordan, N. C., Hansen, N., Fuchs, L. S., Siegler, R. S., Gersten, R., &
Micklos, D. (2013). Developmental predictors of fraction concepts
and procedures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116,
45–58. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.02.001
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Test of Educa-
tional Achievement (2nd ed.) (KTEA™-II). Boston, MA: Person.
Mancl, D. B., Miller, S. P., & Kennedy, M. (2012). Using the
concrete-representational-abstract sequence with integrated strat-
egy instruction to teach subtraction with regrouping to students
with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Prac-
tice, 27, 152–166. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00363.x
Mazzocco, M. M. M., Myers, G. F., Lewis, K. E., Hanich, L. B., &
Murphy, M. M. (2013). Limited knowledge of fraction representa-
tions differentiates middle school students with mathematics learn-
ing disability (dyscalculia) versus low mathematics achievement.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115, 371–387. doi:10.
1016/j.jecp.2013.01.005
Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1993). Using data to learn about
concrete-semi-concrete-abstract instruction for students with math
disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 89–96.
Misquitta, R. (2011). A review of the literature: Fraction instruction
for struggling learners in mathematics. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 26, 109–119.
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2016). Principles for
designing intervention in mathematics. Washington, DC: Office
Journal of Special Education Technology 32(4)
of Special Education, U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved
from www.intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/Princip_
Effect_Math_508.pdf
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for suc-
cess: Final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel.
Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., & Brown, L. (2009). An improved effect
size for single case research: Nonoverlap of all pairs (NAP).
Behavior Therapy, 40, 357–367. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006
Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., & Sauber, S. B. (2011).
Combining non-overlap and trend for single case research:
Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299. doi:10.1016/j.beth.
2010.08.006
Psychological Corporation. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement
Test (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Rakap, S. (2015). Effect sizes as result interpretation aids in single-
subject experimental research: Description and application of four
nonoverlap methods. British Journal of Special Education, 42,
12–33. doi:10.1111/1467-8578.12091
Root, J. R., Browder, D. M., Saunders, A. F., & Lo, Y. Y. (2017).
Schema-based instruction with concrete and virtual manipulative
to teach problem solving to students with autism. Remedial and
Special Education, 38, 42–52. doi:10.1177/0741932516643592
Satsangi, R., & Bouck, E. C. (2015). Using virtual manipulative
instruction to teach the concepts of area and perimeter to secondary
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,
38, 175–186. doi:10.1177/0731948714550101
Shin, M., & Bryant, D. P. (2015). Fraction interventions for students
struggling to learn mathematics: A research synthesis. Remedial and
Special Education, 36, 374–387. doi:10.1177/0741932515572910
Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2005). Vineland
adaptive behavior scales (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention
research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis
of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68,
277–321.
Underhill, R. (1977). Teaching elementary school mathematics (2nd
ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Watt, S. J., & Therrien, W. J. (2016). Examining a preteaching frame-
work to improve fraction computation outcomes among struggling
learners. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for
Children and Youth, 60, 311–319. doi:10.1080/1045988A.2016.
1147011
Wechsler, D. (2004). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Lon-
don, England: Pearson Assessments.
White, O. R., & Haring, N. G. (1980). Exceptional teaching (2nd ed.).
Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Yell, M. (2012). The law and special education (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Author Biographies
Emily C. Bouck is a professor of Special Education in the
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Spe-
cial Education within the College of Education at Michigan
State University. Her research focuses on mathematics
Bouck et al.
education for students with disabilities, with particular atten-
tion to technology to support teaching and learning.
Laura Bassette, PhD, BCBA – D is an assistant professor in
the Applied Behavior Analysis/Autism program at Ball State
University. Her research primarily focuses on the use of tech-
nology to deliver behavioral-based interventions to teach func-
tional and academic skills to people with developmental
disabilities/autism in applied settings.
Jordan Shurr is an associate professor of special education at
Central Michigan University. His current research focuses on
students with autism and intellectual disability with specific
View publication stats
231
emphasis on teacher training and academic interventions and
support.
Jiyoon Park is a doctoral students in the special education
program at Michigan State University. Her research focuses
on technology to support employment soft skills.
Jackie Kerr is a doctoral student in the Curriculum, Instruc-
tion, and Teacher Education program at Michigan State Uni-
versity. Her research interests include English education,
adolescent literacy, teacher educators, and poetic inquiry.
Abbie Whorley is a special educator in Portland, Michigan.