Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities - Division on ...

Pentop Computers as Tools for Teach<strong>in</strong>g Multiplication to
Students with Mild Intellectual <strong>Disabilities</strong>
Emily C. Bouck, Laura Bassette, Teresa Taber-Doughty, Sara M. Flanagan,
<strong>and</strong> Kathryn Szwed
Purdue University
Abstract: The effectiveness of a pentop computer when teach<strong>in</strong>g multiplication facts to three middle school
students with mild <strong>in</strong>tellectual disabilities was exam<strong>in</strong>ed. A multiple probe design was used to assess the
students learn<strong>in</strong>g of one <strong>and</strong> two digit multiplication facts over a 2-3 week <strong>in</strong>tervention period. Dur<strong>in</strong>g the
<strong>in</strong>tervention phase, students used a FLY Pentop Computer (LeapFrog © ) to practice multiplication problems.
Follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>tervention, students were assessed on their ability to solve multiplication problems without the tool.
The results <strong>in</strong>dicated that all three students improved <strong>in</strong> the percentage of correct math facts completed <strong>and</strong>
support the use of the pentop computer when teach<strong>in</strong>g multiplication to students with mild <strong>in</strong>tellectual
disabilities. Limitations <strong>and</strong> suggestions for future research are discussed.
Mathematics education is a high priority <strong>in</strong>
the United States (Ellis & Berry, 2005). The
majority of students <strong>in</strong> the third through
eighth grades are now annually evaluated on
their mathematical abilities under the requirements
of No Child Left Beh<strong>in</strong>d (NCLB, 2002).
Additionally, these students are expected to
reach proficiency <strong>in</strong> this doma<strong>in</strong> by the 2013–
2014 school year (Yell & Drasgow, 2005). Research
suggests that students <strong>in</strong> the United
States perform worse than their <strong>in</strong>ternational
counterparts (Beaton, Mullis, Mart<strong>in</strong>, Kelly, &
Smith, 1996); as such, mathematics is considered
an important <strong>and</strong> critical content doma<strong>in</strong>
for <strong>in</strong>struction <strong>and</strong> evaluation for students
with <strong>and</strong> without disabilities. Yet,
researchers <strong>and</strong> teachers document that many
students with disabilities struggle with mathematics
(Grise, 1980). These struggles can <strong>in</strong>clude
skills rang<strong>in</strong>g from computational fluency
to know<strong>in</strong>g one’s basic facts as well as
problem solv<strong>in</strong>g (Cawley, Parmar, Fley,
Salmon, & Roy, 2001; Jitendra, DiPipi, & Per-
Correspondence regard<strong>in</strong>g this article should be
sent to Emily C. Bouck, Purdue University, Dept. of
<strong>Education</strong>al Studies, 100 N University Street, West
Lafayette, IN 47907-2098. Email: bouck@purdue.
edu
<strong>Education</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>, 2009, 44(3), 367–380
© <strong>Division</strong> on <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>
ron-Jones, 2002; Montague, 1992; Parmar,
Cawley, & Miller, 1994; Woodward & Montague,
2002).
While students with mild <strong>in</strong>tellectual disabilities,
learn<strong>in</strong>g disabilities, <strong>and</strong> emotional/
behavior disorders are aggregated grouped together
<strong>in</strong> studies, these students may actually
experience very different needs <strong>in</strong> mathematics
education (Parmar et al., 1994). Previous
research suggests that students with mild <strong>in</strong>tellectual
disabilities may not benefit from the
same mathematics curriculum <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>struction
as students with learn<strong>in</strong>g disabilities, <strong>and</strong> furthermore,
students with <strong>in</strong>tellectual disabilities
might actually struggle to a greater extent
than students with learn<strong>in</strong>g disabilities <strong>in</strong> this
doma<strong>in</strong> (Parmar et al.; Van Luit & Naglieri,
1999). Parmar et al. <strong>in</strong>dicated that secondary
students with mild <strong>in</strong>tellectual disabilities <strong>and</strong>
learn<strong>in</strong>g disabilities are qualitatively <strong>and</strong>
quantitatively different <strong>in</strong> the area of mathematics.
They suggested that the scores for students
with mild <strong>in</strong>tellectual disabilities did not
<strong>in</strong>crease across years or only <strong>in</strong>creased slightly.
In addition, the students with <strong>in</strong>tellectual disabilities
demonstrated difficulty with underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g
the mathematics concepts be<strong>in</strong>g presented.
Unfortunately, little research exam<strong>in</strong>ed
mathematics <strong>and</strong> students with mild <strong>in</strong>tellectual
disabilities, particularly at the secondary
FLY Pen Math / 367