You are here:

Multimedia Open Educational Resources in Mathematics for High School Students with Learning Disabilities

, University of South Florida, United States ; , Northwestern State University, United States

JCMST Volume 37, Number 2, ISSN 0731-9258 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA


Open Educational Resources (OER) can offer educators the necessary flexibility for tailoring educational resources to better fit their educational goals. Although the number of OER repositories is growing fast, few studies have been conducted to empirically test the effectiveness of OER integration in the classroom. Furthermore, very little is known about the benefits of utilizing OER in high school mathematics classrooms for students with learning disabilities. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of Multimedia Open Resources for Education (MORE) on the mathematics performance and motivation of high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities. The independent variable was the use of three MORE to supplement mathematics instruction. The outcome measures included students’ achievement and motivation. At the end of the four-week study, a posttest was conducted, followed by the Course Interest Survey (CIS) based on Keller's ARCS motivational theory. The results showed that the achievement test scores between the experimental group and the control group were not significantly different. However, the results of the CIS showed a statistically significant difference in motivation between the two groups (p < .05) in all of the four motivational components - attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction.


Park, S. & McLeod, K. (2018). Multimedia Open Educational Resources in Mathematics for High School Students with Learning Disabilities. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 37(2), 131-153. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 18, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Achieve, A. (2011). Rubrics for evaluating open education resource (OER) objects. Washington, D.C.: Achieve, Inc. Retrieved from
  2. Almekhlafi, A.G., & Almeqdadi, F.A. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of technology integration in the United Arab Emirates school classrooms. Educational Technology& Society, 13 (1), 165–175.
  3. Baki, A., & Guveli, E. (2008). Evaluation of a Web based mathematics teaching material on the subject of functions. Computer& Education, 51, 854-863.
  4. Bliss, T.J., Tonks, D., & Patrick, S. (2013). Open educational resources and collaborative content development: A practical guide for state and school leaders. INACOL, The International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from
  5. Blood, E., & Neel, R. (2008). Using student response systems in lecture-based instruction: Does it change student engagement and learning? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3), 375-383.
  6. Bryant, B., & Bryant, D. (2008). Introduction to the special series: Mathematics and learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(4), 3-8.
  7. Cates, G. (2005). Effects of peer versus computer-assisted drill on mathematics response rates. Psychology in the Schools, 42(6), 637-646.
  8. Connor, J., Moss, L., & Grover, B. (2007). Student evaluation of mathematical statements using dynamic geometry software. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and technology, 38(1), 55-63.
  9. Council of Chief State School Officers (2014). State of the states: Open educational resources in K-12 education. Retrieved from
  10. Dineen, L.C., & Blakesley, B.C. (1973). Algorithm AS 62: Generator for the sampling distribution of the Mann-Whitney U statistic. Applied Statistics, 22, 269-273.
  11. Drickey, N. (2006). Learning technologies for enhancing student understanding of mathematics. International Journal of Learning, 13(5), 109-116.
  12. Dunleavy, M., & Heinecke, W. (2007). The impact of 1:1 laptop use on middle school math and science standardized test scores. Computers in the Schools, 24(3/4), 7-22.
  13. Eccles, J.S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.
  14. Field, A.P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th edition). London: Sage publications.
  15. Foegen, A. (2008). Algebra progress monitoring and interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(1), 66-78.
  16. Funkhouser, C. (2003). The effects of computer-augmented geometry instruction on students’ performance and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 163-175.
  17. Ganesh, T., & Middleton, J. (2006). Challenges in linguistically and culturally diverse elementary settings with math instruction using learning technologies. The Urban Review, 38(2), 101-143.
  18. Grabinger, S., Aplin, C., & Ponnappa-Brenner, G. (2008). Supporting learners with cognitive impairments in online environments. TechTrends, 52(1), 6369.
  19. Hannafin, R., Truxaw, M., Virmillion, J., & Liu, Y. (2008). Effects of spatial ability and instructional program on geometry achievement. Educational Psychology, 101(3), 148-156.
  20. Harskamp, E., & Suhre, C. (2007). Schoenfeld’s problem solving theory in a student controlled learning environment. Computers& Education, 49(3), 822-839.
  21. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K.A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.
  22. Holahan, P., Jurkat, M., & Friedman, E. (2000). Evaluation of a mentor teacher model for enhancing mathematics instruction through the use of computers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(3), 336-351.
  23. Hsieh, C., & Lin, S. (2008). Dynamic visual computer design for factors and multiples word problem learning. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 39(2), 215-232.
  24. Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2010). Productive use of learning resources in an online problem-based learning environment, Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 84-99.
  25. Johnson, L., Adams, B.S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC Horizon Report: 2013 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Multimedia Open Educational Resources in Mathematics ondary school science. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(4), 261-289.
  26. Keller, J.M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York, NY: Springer.
  27. Khanna, P., & Basak, P.C. (2013). An OER architecture framework: Needs and design. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(1), 65-83.
  28. King-Sears, M.E., & Evmenova, A.S. (2007). Premises, principles, and processes for integrating TECHnology into instruction, TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40(1), 6-14.
  29. Kopcha, T., & Sullivan, H. (2008). Learner preferences and prior knowledge in learner-controlled computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research& Development, 56(3), 265-286.
  30. Kurtz, T., & Middleton, J. (2006). Using a functional approach to change preservice teachers’ understanding of mathematics software. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 46-65.
  31. Li, Q., & Edmonds, K. (2005). Mathematics and at-risk adult learners: Would technology help? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 143-168.
  32. Martindale, T., Pearson, C., Curda, L., & Pilcher, J. (2005). Effects of an online instructional application on reading and mathematics standardized test scores. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 349-360.
  33. Mayer, R.E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd Ed., pp. 4371).
  34. McKinney, S., & Frazier, W. (2008). Embracing the principles and standards for school mathematics: An inquiry into the pedagogical and instructional practices of mathematics teachers in high-poverty middle schools. The ClearingHouse, 81(5), 201-210.
  35. Nachar, N.M. (2008). The Mann-Whitney U: A test for assessing whether two independent samples come from the same distribution, Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(1), 13-20.
  36. Orr, D., Rimini, M., & Van Damme, D. (2015), Open educational resources: A catalyst for innovation, educational research and innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris. Http://,M.(2002).Technology-enrichedclassrooms: Effects on students of low socioeconomic status. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 389-409.
  37. Rameau, P., & Louime, C. (2007). Mathematics phobia: Are the mathematical sciences a pothole in the road of life? Current Science, 93(11), 1481-1482.
  38. Rodríguez, J.S., Dodero, J.M., & Alonso, S.S. (2011). Ascertaining the relevance of open educational resources by integrating various quality indicators. RUSC: Revista de Universidad y Sociedad delConocimiento, 8(2). Park and McLeod in an ICT context. International Journal of Media, Technology and Lifelong Learning, 3(2), 1-13.
  39. Scarpello, G. (2007, September). Helping students get past math anxiety. Techniques, 34-35.
  40. Stephens, L., & Konvalina, J. (1999). The use of computer algebra software in teaching intermediate and college algebra. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and technology, 30(4), 483-488.
  41. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. (2013). Open educational resources: Breaking the lockbox on education. Retrieved from Open-educational-resources
  42. Usdan, J., & Gottheimer, J. (2012, February 3). FCC chairman: Digital textbooks to all students in five years [Blog post]. Retrieved from
  43. Vale, C., & Leder, G. (2004). Student views of computer-based mathematics in the middle years: Does gender make a difference? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(1), 287-312.
  44. Yuan, M., & Recker, M. (2015). Not all rubrics are equal: A review of rubrics for evaluating the quality of open educational resources, International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 16-38.
  45. Zafiropoulou, M., & Karmba-Schina, C. (2005). Applying cognitive-behavioral interventions in Greek mainstream school Settings: The case of learning difficulties. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3(2), 29-48.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact