Advertisement

Increasing Efficiency in Mathematics: Teaching Subitizing to Students with Moderate Intellectual Disability

  • Bree Jimenez
  • Alicia Saunders
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

Subitizing is an early numeracy mathematical skill where students are able to state the quantity of something without counting. This mathematical skill is more efficient than counting with one-to-one correspondence and leads to increased addition speed and accuracy. As more research emerges showing students with moderate and severe intellectual disability can learn mathematical concepts, there is a need for addressing efficiency. A single-case, multiple probe across participants design was used to investigate the effects of simultaneous prompting on subitizing and addition problem solving speed on three students with moderate intellectual disability. Visual analysis of baseline, intervention, and maintenance phase data indicated a functional relationship between simultaneous prompting and subitizing, and statistical analysis (Tau-U) further supported this with a large effect. This also led to increasing the speed with which addition problems were solved. In accordance with previous research on the use of systematic instruction (i.e., simultaneous prompting), students with intellectual disability can benefit from learning mathematical strategies to support their conceptual understanding and mathematical fluency. Future research and implications for practices are discussed.

Keywords

Moderate intellectual disability Mathematics Severe disabilities Access to the general curriculum Systematic instruction Simultaneous prompting Subitizing 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study. Student assent and parental/guardian consent was obtained for student participants.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Akmanoglu, N., & Batu, S. (2004). Teaching pointing to numerals to individuals with autism using simultaneous prompting. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 326–336.Google Scholar
  2. Albus, D., & Thurlow, M. L. (2012). Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) participation policies (Synthesis Report 88). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.Google Scholar
  3. Baroody, A. J. (1986). Counting ability of moderately and mildly handicapped children. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 289–300.Google Scholar
  4. Baroody, A. J., Li, X., & Lai, M. (2008). Toddler’s spontaneous attention to number. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 240–270.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802216151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.Google Scholar
  6. Birkan, B. (2005). Using simultaneous prompting for teaching various discrete tasks to students with mental retardation. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 68–79.Google Scholar
  7. 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 and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 37, 308–320.  https://doi.org/10.2511/027494813805327205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Harris, A., & Wakeman, S. (2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 407–432.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clements, D. H. (1999). Subitizing: What is it? Why teach it? Teaching Children Mathematics, 5(7), 400–405.Google Scholar
  10. Clements, D. H., Fuson, K. C., & Sarama, J. (2017). The research-based balance in early childhood mathematics: A response to common core criticisms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 40, 150–162.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2009). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Collins, B. C. (2012). Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
  13. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Creech-Galloway, C., Collins, B. C., Knight, V., & Bausch, M. (2013). Using a simultaneous prompting procedure with an iPad to teach the Pythagorean Theorem to adolescents with moderate intellectual disability. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38, 222–232.  https://doi.org/10.1177/154079691303800402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (Eds.). (2014). Single case research: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 18–28.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699903300102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horner, R. D., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-189.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Hudson, M. E., Zambone, A., & Brickhouse, J. (2016). Teaching early numeracy skills using single switch voice-output devices to students with severe multiple disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 28, 153–175.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10883-015-9451-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jimenez, B. A., & Kemmery, M. (2013). Building the early numeracy skills of students with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 479–490.Google Scholar
  20. Jimenez, B. A., & Staples, K. (2015). Access to the common core state standards in mathematics through early numeracy skill building for students with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 17–30.Google Scholar
  21. Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters: Kindergarten number competence and later mathematics outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45, 850–867.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014939.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Purpura, D. J., Hume, L. E., Sims, D. M., & Lonigan, C. J. (2011). Early literacy and early numeracy: The value of including early literacy skills in the prediction of numeracy development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 647–658.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.07.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Rao, S., & Kane, M. (2009). Teaching students with cognitive impairment chained mathematical task of decimal subtraction using simultaneous prompting. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 244–256.Google Scholar
  24. Rao, S., & Mallow, L. (2009). Using simultaneous prompting procedure to promote recall of multiplication facts by middle school students with cognitive impairment. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 80–90.Google Scholar
  25. Rasinski, T. V. (2006). A brief history of reading fluency. In S. Samuels & A. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction. International Reading Association: Newark.Google Scholar
  26. Ruppar, A. L. (2013). Authentic literacy and communication in inclusive settings for students with significant disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46, 44–50.  https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991304600205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for young children. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Saunders, A., Root, J. R., & Jimenez, B. A. (2018). Recommendations for inclusive educational practices in mathematics for students with severe disabilities. Inclusion, (in press).Google Scholar
  29. Skibo, H., Mims, P., & Spooner, F. (2011). Teaching number identification to students with severe disabilities using response cards. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 124–133.Google Scholar
  30. Snell, M., & Brown, F. (2006). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Spooner, F., Root, J. R., Browder, D. M., & Saunders, A. F. (2018). Updated evidence on teaching mathematics to students with moderate and severe disabilities. Remedial and Special Education. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517751055.
  32. Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2013). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (8th ed.). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  33. Vannest, K. J., & Ninci, J. (2015). Evaluating intervention effects in single-case research designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93, 403–411.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yakubova, G., & Bouck, E. (2014). Not all created equally: Exploring calculator use by students with mild intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 111–126.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.University of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations