Teacher Views of Math E-learning Tools for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities
Zikai Alex Wen, Erica Silverstein, Yuhang Zhao, Anjelika Lynne Amog, Katherine Garnett, Shiri Azenkot · 2020 · Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS 2020) · doi:10.1145/3373625.3417029
Summary
This paper examines how teachers use math e-learning tools with students who have specific learning disabilities (SLDs) in grades 5-8, a population where approximately 5% of US public school students are identified as having an SLD. SLDs predominantly affect reading (dyslexia), math (dyscalculia), and writing (dysgraphia), and students with any SLD tend to struggle with math problems that involve reading and writing. Through semi-structured interviews with 12 US-based teachers (8 special education certified, 4 general education, ages 25-62, 1.5-35 years experience), the researchers investigated which tools teachers use, why and how they use them, and how effective they perceive them to be. Participants used a total of 11 math e-learning tools: 5 drill-and-practice websites (IXL Learning, Khan Academy, CMP 3, Flocabulary, BrainPOP) and 6 educational digital games (Kahoot!, ST Math, Prodigy, DareDash, Jungle Math, Slice Fractions). Critically, none of these tools were designed specifically for students with SLDs — teachers adapted general education tools as best they could. Teachers used these tools for four main purposes: providing independent practice in the classroom (freeing them to give one-on-one attention to students who needed it most), motivating and engaging students (who were often anxious and less confident about math), assessment (using diagnostic features to determine grade-level abilities for IEP documentation), and tracking student performance on homework.
Key findings
Four critical challenges emerged. First, text-intensive user interfaces: drill-and-practice websites presented problems, hints, and solutions as dense text, which was "just like a string of steps and words" that intimidated students with reading difficulties. Teachers used text-to-speech as a partial workaround, but only one tool (IXL Learning) provided it by default, and only for K-3. Second, insufficient feedback about student performance: teacher dashboards showed aggregated data and final answers but could not reveal why students made mistakes, whether they were guessing randomly, or how they approached problems. Teachers had to sit with students individually to monitor whether they were reasoning or randomly clicking. Third, inability to adjust difficulty levels: students with SLDs often needed to practice below-grade-level skills, but teachers could not lower difficulty settings — students became frustrated and "throw iPads" or "shut it down." Fourth, setup and maintenance difficulties: limited class time was wasted on login issues, password resets, and switching between tools (students had only 12 minutes per skill before needing to switch). Device maintenance was also problematic — "We had tablets, but they all died." Regarding assistive technology, teachers wanted built-in AT features (text-to-speech, closed captioning) but faced bureaucratic barriers: adding standalone AT to a student's IEP took up to a year, and middle school students felt stigmatized using visible assistive tools in front of peers.
Relevance
This paper fills an important gap by centering teachers' perspectives — the people who actually integrate e-learning tools into curricula — rather than studying tools in isolated lab settings. For accessibility practitioners and ed-tech designers, the findings provide 10 actionable design implications across teacher-oriented and student-oriented categories. Key recommendations include: involve special education teachers in tool design; incorporate virtual manipulatives alongside math problems (no existing tool combined these); detect and report student frustration to teachers (potentially using AI to analyze input patterns); allow fine-grained difficulty adjustment; design quick classroom setup modes with pre-assignable 10-minute exercises; provide flexible annotation toolkits for word problems (circle, underline, draw arrows); incorporate game elements into drill-and-practice sites; use AR manipulatives for when physical ones are unavailable; avoid language in scoring systems that reinforces students' preconceived notions of being "bad at math"; and integrate assistive technology directly into mainstream tools to avoid stigma. The study is limited to 12 teachers in three US states teaching grades 5-8, but reached thematic saturation.
Tags: learning disabilities · education accessibility · educational technology · dyscalculia · dyslexia · assistive technology · cognitive accessibility · game accessibility · inclusive design