# Educational Intervention through a Board Game for the Teaching of Mathematics to Dyslexic Greek Students

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Objective/Research Questions and Hypotheses Control

- Identifying difficulties of students with dyslexia in mathematics.
- Critical evaluation of A.A.P. (adapted analytical programs) of mathematics for students with dyslexia.
- Exploring if an intervention based on a board game using A.A.P. helps dyslexic students.

- Are the A.A.P. helping students with dyslexia to understand mathematics?
- Are the exercises and suggested activities from the A.A.P. sufficient for such an adapted teaching?
- Does the intervention program using A.A.P. help dyslexic students?
- Is there a significantly positive relationship between the performance of dyslexic students and their attendance of the A.A.P.?
- Is there a significantly positive relationship between the performance of dyslexic students and their participation in the intervention program?

#### 2.2. Participants

#### 2.3. Variables—Measures

#### 2.4. Design of the Research

#### 2.5. Procedure

#### 2.5.1. Pre-Test

#### 2.5.2. Intervention

- Quantity
- Equality of fractions
- Base of 10
- Algebraic and Geometric Thought
- Forms of a fractional number

#### 2.5.3. Reliability of Intervention

#### 2.5.4. Post-Test

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Performance of Dyslexic Students, Who Were Not Intervened, However, Only Attended the Adapted Analytical Program

#### 3.2. Performance of Dyslexic Students Who Participated in the Intervention

#### 3.3. Performance Testing of Dyslexic Students in Each Question, Who Participated in the Intervention

## 4. Discussion

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances | t-Test for Equality of Means | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-Tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||

Lower | Upper | |||||||||

Score | Equal variances assumed | 0.214 | 0.645 | −4.505 | 120 | 0 | −2.295 | 0.509 | −3.304 | −1.286 |

Equal variances not assumed | −4.505 | 119.73 | 0 | −2.295 | 0.509 | −3.304 | −1.286 |

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances | t-Test for Equality of Means | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-Tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||

Lower | Upper | |||||||||

Score | Equal variances assumed | 0.653 | 0.421 | −6.847 | 124 | 0.000 | −5.683 | 0.830 | −7.325 | −4.040 |

Equal variances not assumed | −6.847 | 119.670 | 0.000 | −5.683 | 0.830 | −7.326 | −4.039 |

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances | t-Test for Equality of Means | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-Tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||

Lower | Upper | |||||||||

Score | Equal variances assumed | 19.571 | 0.000 | −4.816 | 122 | 0.000 | −3.075 | 0.639 | −4.339 | −1.811 |

Equal variances not assumed | −4.848 | 107.345 | 0.000 | −3.075 | 0.634 | −4.333 | −1.818 |

**Table A4.**Performance testing of dyslexic students in each question who participated in the intervention.

Knowledge Paper in Fractions | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Note in the following number line the points corresponding to the given fractions 2/7, 7/7, 8/7, 5/7, 0, 1/7, 15/7 | Pre-test | 63 | 2.52 | 2.687 | 0.339 |

Post-test | 63 | 4.63 | 2.465 | 0.311 | |

We have the fractions 4/9 and 16/19. Are these fractions equivalent? Justify your answer. | Pre-test | 63 | 0.32 | 0.469 | 0.059 |

Post-test | 63 | 0.65 | 0.481 | 0.061 | |

Find a fraction between 3/4 and 5/6. | Pre-test | 63 | 0.11 | 0.317 | 0.040 |

Post-test | 63 | 0.54 | 0.502 | 0.063 | |

Compare these fractions: 5/8 and 4/6. | Pre-test | 63 | 0.24 | 0.429 | 0.054 |

Post-test | 63 | 0.71 | 0.455 | 0.057 | |

Circle the correct answer for this operation 6/7–4/21 | Pre-test | 63 | 0.52 | 0.503 | 0.063 |

Post-test | 63 | 0.75 | 0.439 | 0.055 | |

Calculate the operations 3/4*5/3 and 4/3*15/8 | Pre-test | 63 | 0.95 | 0.923 | 0.116 |

Post-test | 63 | 1.67 | 0.672 | 0.085 | |

Convert the following fractions to decimal numbers: 7/10, 9/25, 4/50 | Pre-test | 63 | 0.67 | 0.967 | 0.122 |

Post-test | 63 | 1.81 | 1.045 | 0.132 | |

Four people money sharing problem | Pre-test | 63 | 0.68 | 1.280 | 0.161 |

Post-test | 63 | 0.94 | 1.378 | 0.174 |

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances | t-Test for Equality of Means | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-Tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||

Lower | Upper | |||||||||

Note in the following number line the points corresponding to the given fractions 2/7, 7/7, 8/7, 5/7, 0, 1/7, 15/7 | Equal variances assumed | 0.127 | 0.722 | −4.595 | 124 | 0.000 | −2.111 | 0.459 | −3.020 | −1.202 |

Equal variances not assumed | −4.595 | 123.084 | 0.000 | −2.111 | 0.459 | −3.020 | −1.202 | |||

We have the fractions 4/9 and 16/19. Are these fractions equivalent? Justify your answer. | Equal variances assumed | 0.560 | 0.455 | −3.939 | 124 | 0.000 | −0.333 | 0.085 | −0.501 | −0.166 |

Equal variances not assumed | −3.939 | 123,930 | 0.000 | −0.333 | 0.085 | −0.501 | −0.166 | |||

Find a fraction between 3/4 and 5/6. | Equal variances assumed | 90.598 | 0.000 | −5.727 | 124 | 0.000 | −0.429 | 0.075 | −0.577 | −0.280 |

Equal variances not assumed | −5.727 | 104.570 | 0.000 | −0.429 | 0.075 | −0.577 | −0.280 | |||

Compare these fractions: 5/8 and 4/6. | Equal variances assumed | 1.461 | 0.229 | −6.039 | 124 | 0.000 | −0.476 | 0.079 | −0.632 | −0.320 |

Equal variances not assumed | −6.039 | 123.572 | 0.000 | −0.476 | 0.079 | −0.632 | −0.320 | |||

Circle the correct answer for this operation 6/7–4/21 | Equal variances assumed | 19.202 | 0.000 | −2.641 | 124 | 0.009 | −0.222 | 0.084 | −0.389 | −0.056 |

Equal variances not assumed | −2641 | 121.728 | 0.009 | −0.222 | 0.084 | −0.389 | −0.056 | |||

Calculate the operations 3/4*5/3 and 4/3*15/8 | Equal variances assumed | 22.395 | 0.000 | −4.965 | 124 | 0.000 | −0.714 | 0.144 | −0.999 | −0.430 |

Equal variances not assumed | −4.965 | 113.293 | 0.000 | −0.714 | 0.144 | −0.999 | −0.429 | |||

Convert the following fractions to decimal numbers: 7/10, 9/25, 4/50 | Equal variances assumed | 1.377 | 0.243 | −6.370 | 124 | 0.000 | −1.143 | 0.179 | −1.498 | −0.788 |

Equal variances not assumed | −6.370 | 123.264 | 0.000 | −1.143 | 0.179 | −1.498 | −0.788 | |||

Four people money sharing problem | Equal variances assumed | 0.132 | 0.717 | −1.072 | 124 | 0.286 | −0.254 | 0.237 | −0.723 | 0.215 |

Equal variances not assumed | −1.072 | 123.336 | 0.286 | −0.254 | 0.0237 | −0.723 | 0.215 |

## References

- Abd Rauf, Athira Amira, Maizatul Akmar Ismail, Vimala Balakrishnan, and Khalid Haruna. 2018. Dyslexic Children: The Need for Parents Awareness. Journal of Education and Human Development 7: 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abd Rauf, Athira Amira, Maizatul Akmar Ismail, Vimala Balakrishnan, Loh Sau Cheong, Novia Indriaty Admodisastro, and Khalid Haruna. 2020. Analysis of Support for Parents in Raising Children with Dyslexia. Journal of Family Issues 42: 276–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Azawi, Rula, Fatma Al-Faliti, and Mazin Al-Blushi. 2016. Educational Gamification vs. Game Based Learning: Comparative Study. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology 7: 131–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryan, T., M. Bay, N. Lopez-Reyna, and M. Donahue. 1991. Characteristics of students with learning disabilities: A summary of the extant data base and its implications for educational programs. In The Regular Edu Cation Initiative: Alternative Perspectives. Edited by John Wills Lloyd, Nirbhay N. Singh and Alan C. Repp. Sycamore: Thomson Brooks/Cole, pp. 121–31. [Google Scholar]
- Bryant, Brian R., Diane Pedrotty Bryant, Jennifer Porterfield, Minyi Shih Dennis, Terry Falcomata, Courtney Valentine, Chelsea Brewer, and Kathy Bell. 2014. The Effects of a Tier 3 Intervention on the Mathematics Performance of Second Grade Students with Severe Mathematics Difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities 49: 176–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Castellar, Elena Núñez, Jan Van Looy, Arnaud Szmalec, and Lieven de Marez. 2014. Improving Arithmetic Skills through Gameplay: Assessment of the Effectiveness of an Educational Game in Terms of Cognitive and Affective Learning Outcomes. Information Sciences 264: 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, Jeong Hoon, Jessica M. Meisenheimer, Amy B. McCart, and Wayne Sailor. 2016. Improving Learning for All Students through Equity-Based Inclusive Reform Practices. Remedial and Special Education 38: 28–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, Sara Cothren, Lauren W. Collins, Lisa L. Morin, and Paul J. Riccomini. 2019. Schema-Based Instruction for Mathematical Word Problem Solving: An Evidence-Based Review for Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 43: 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emerson, Jane. 2015. The enigma of dyscalculia. In The Routledge International Handbook of Dyscalculia and Mathematical Learning Difficulties. London: Routledge, pp. 217–27. [Google Scholar]
- Fokides, Emmanuel. 2017. Digital Educational Games and Mathematics. Results of a Case Study in Primary School Settings. Education and Information Technologies 23: 851–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Futterman, Kathy, and Kathryn R. Futterman. 2017. Identification of Students with Dyslexia in California Public Schools. Ph.D. thesis, California Public Schools, Coal Center, PA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Grehan, Martin, Ciarán Mac an Bhaird, and Ann O’Shea. 2015. Investigating Students’ Levels of Engagement with Mathematics: Critical Events, Motivations, and Influences on Behaviour. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 47: 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Yanhong, Chongtao Xu, Meirong He, Wenlong Huang, and Kusheng Wu. 2020a. Saliva Cortisol, Melatonin Levels and Circadian Rhythm Alterations in Chinese Primary School Children with Dyslexia. Medicine 99: e19098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huang, Yanhong, Meirong He, Anna Li, Yuhang Lin, Xuanzhi Zhang, and Kusheng Wu. 2020b. Personality, Behavior Characteristics, and Life Quality Impact of Children with Dyslexia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17: 1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ke, Fengfeng, and Tatiana Abras. 2012. Games for Engaged Learning of Middle School Children with Special Learning Needs. British Journal of Educational Technology 44: 225–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kebritchi, Mansureh, Atsusi Hirumi, and Haiyan Bai. 2010. The Effects of Modern Mathematics Computer Games on Mathematics Achievement and Class Motivation. Computers & Education 55: 427–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiger, Derick, Dani Herro, and Deb Prunty. 2012. Examining the Influence of a Mobile Learning Intervention on Third Grade Math Achievement. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 45: 61–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Sunha, and Chang Mido. 2010. Computer games for the math achievement of diverse students. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 13: 224–32. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, Sunha, Mido Chang, Kirby Deater-Deckard, Michael A. Evans, Anderson Norton, and Yavuz Samur. 2017. Educational Games and Students’ Game Engagement in Elementary School Classrooms. Journal of Computers in Education 4: 395–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraiger, Kurt, J. Kevin Ford, and Eduardo Salas. 1993. Application of Cognitive, Skill-Based, and Affective Theories of Learning Outcomes to New Methods of Training Evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 311–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López-Hernández, Danilo, Michel Brossard, Jean-Claude Fardeau, and Michel Lepage. 2005. Effect of Different Termite Feeding Groups on P Sorption and P Availability in African and South American Savannas. Biology and Fertility of Soils 42: 207–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macrae, Sheila, Margaret Brown, Hannah Bartholomew, and Melissa Rodd. 2003. An Examination of One Group of Failing Single Honours Students in One University. MSOR Connections 3: 17–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muhamad, Hani Zohra, Zachary Walker, and Kara Rosenblatt. 2016. The Teaching of Maths to Students with Dyslexia: A Teachers’ Perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Developmental Differences 3: 228–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papadimitriou, Panagiotis, and Sotiria Tzivinikou. 2019. Departments of Integration in Secondary Education: A Critical Review on Procedure and the Educational Practices of the Evaluation and the Intervention that Are Adopted. Panhellenic Conference of Educational Sciences 9: 565–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papadopoulos, Georgios. 2010. Laboratory of Mathematics & Statistics [Course Notes]. Available online: www.aua.gr.http://www.aua.gr/gpapadopoulos/shmeiwseis.php (accessed on 30 September 2010).
- Robinson, Deborah. 2017. Effective Inclusive Teacher Education for Special Educational Needs and Disabilities: Some More Thoughts on the Way Forward. Teaching and Teacher Education 61: 164–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roitsch, Jane, and Silvana Watson. 2019. An Overview of Dyslexia: Definition, Characteristics, Assessment, Identification, and Intervention. Science Journal of Education 7: 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rüsseler, Jascha, Zheng Ye, Ivonne Gerth, Gregor R. Szycik, and Thomas F. Münte. 2017. Audio-Visual Speech Perception in Adult Readers with Dyslexia: An FMRI Study. Brain Imaging and Behavior 12: 357–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabri, Farooq, and Tracey Gyateng. 2015. Understanding Statistical Significance: A Short Guide. London: New Philanthropy Capital. [Google Scholar]
- Shin, Mikyung, and Diane P. Bryant. 2016. Improving the Fraction Word Problem Solving of Students with Mathematics Learning Disabilities. Remedial and Special Education 38: 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, Namsoo, LeeAnn M. Sutherland, Cathleen A. Norris, and Elliot Soloway. 2011. Effects of Game Technology on Elementary Student Learning in Mathematics. British Journal of Educational Technology 43: 540–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shu, Liuyi, and Min Liu. 2019. Student engagement in game-based learning: A literature review from 2008 to 2018. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 28: 193–215. [Google Scholar]
- Stampoltzis, Aglaia, and Stavroula Polychronopoulou. 2009. Greek University Students with Dyslexia: An Interview Study. European Journal of Special Needs Education 24: 307–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tam, Irelan O. L., and Cynthia Leung. 2019. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Literacy Intervention Programme on Enhancing Learning Outcomes for Secondary Students with Dyslexia in Hong Kong. Dyslexia 25: 296–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witzel, Bradley, and Minnie Mize. 2018. Meeting the Needs of Students with Dyslexia and Dyscalculia. SRATE Journal 27: 31–39. [Google Scholar]
- Yeo, Rebecca, Tim Bunn, Aishah Abdullah, Siti Aisha Bte Shukri, and Anaberta Oehlers-Jaen. 2015. Evaluating the Progress of Dyslexic Children on a Small-Group Maths Intervention Programme. Asia Pacific Journal of Developmental Differences 2: 144–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

C.G. | E.G. | Total | |
---|---|---|---|

Male | 32 | 135 | 67 |

Female | 29 | 28 | 57 |

Total | 61 | 63 | 124 |

Variables | Categories |
---|---|

Gender | Male |

Female | |

Method of teaching | A.A.P. to C.G. |

Intervention to E.G. |

Variables | Definition | Dimension |
---|---|---|

Evaluation of performance of D.S. in pre-test | 8 questions with a scale 0–20 | Performance of D.S. in the chapter of fractions in mathematics before teaching A.A.P./intervention |

Evaluation of performance of D.S. in intervention program | 25 questions with a scale 0–25 | Performance of D.S. in the chapter of fractions in mathematics during the intervention program |

Evaluation of performance of D.S. in post-test | 8 questions with a scale 0–20 | Performance of D.S. in the chapter of fractions in mathematics after teaching A.A.P./intervention |

Cronbach’s Alpha | Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items | N of Items |
---|---|---|

0.766 | 0.771 | 25 |

Scale Mean If Item Deleted | Scale Variance If Item Deleted | Corrected Item-Total Correlation | Cronbach’s Alpha If Item Deleted | |
---|---|---|---|---|

Card—Q1 | 14.91 | 19.326 | 0.017 | 0.775 |

Card—Q2 | 15.14 | 19.061 | 0.176 | 0.764 |

Card—Q3 | 14.63 | 19.033 | 0.081 | 0.772 |

Card—Q4 | 14.58 | 18.072 | 0.327 | 0.756 |

Card—Q5 | 14.55 | 18.176 | 0.307 | 0.757 |

Card—Q6 | 14.72 | 18.696 | 0.154 | 0.767 |

Card—Q7 | 14.63 | 18.7 | 0.16 | 0.767 |

Card—Q8 | 14.38 | 18.658 | 0.274 | 0.76 |

Card—Q9 | 14.48 | 19.15 | 0.074 | 0.77 |

Card—Q10 | 14.51 | 17.817 | 0.424 | 0.751 |

Card—Q11 | 14.46 | 17.757 | 0.479 | 0.748 |

Card—Q12 | 14.47 | 17.874 | 0.432 | 0.751 |

Card—Q13 | 14.46 | 17.511 | 0.552 | 0.744 |

Card—Q14 | 14.52 | 17.86 | 0.408 | 0.752 |

Card—Q15 | 14.66 | 19.356 | 0.003 | 0.776 |

Card—Q16 | 14.77 | 17.7 | 0.395 | 0.752 |

Card—Q17 | 14.89 | 17.793 | 0.397 | 0.752 |

Card—Q18 | 14.39 | 18.254 | 0.402 | 0.754 |

Card—Q19 | 14.54 | 17.366 | 0.531 | 0.744 |

Card—Q20 | 14.81 | 17.708 | 0.397 | 0.752 |

Card—Q21 | 14.75 | 18.161 | 0.282 | 0.759 |

Card—Q22 | 14.63 | 18.033 | 0.324 | 0.756 |

Card—Q23 | 14.55 | 18.003 | 0.353 | 0.755 |

Card—Q24 | 1450 | 18.223 | 0.316 | 0.757 |

Card—Q25 | 14.77 | 18.106 | 0.296 | 0.758 |

Knowledge Paper in Fractions | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Score | Pre-test | 61 | 6.33 | 2.879 | 0.369 |

Post-test | 61 | 8.62 | 2.746 | 0.352 |

Knowledge Paper in Fractions | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Score | Pre-test | 63 | 6.02 | 5.082 | 0.64 |

Post-test | 63 | 11.7 | 4.192 | 0.528 |

Program That the Students Follow | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Score | Adapted Analytical Program | 61 | 8.62 | 2.746 | 0.352 |

Interventionprogram | 63 | 11.7 | 4.192 | 0.528 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Malliakas, E.; Jiménez-Fanjul, N.; Marín-Díaz, V.
Educational Intervention through a Board Game for the Teaching of Mathematics to Dyslexic Greek Students. *Soc. Sci.* **2021**, *10*, 370.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10100370

**AMA Style**

Malliakas E, Jiménez-Fanjul N, Marín-Díaz V.
Educational Intervention through a Board Game for the Teaching of Mathematics to Dyslexic Greek Students. *Social Sciences*. 2021; 10(10):370.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10100370

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Malliakas, Efstratios, Nοelia Jiménez-Fanjul, and Verónica Marín-Díaz.
2021. "Educational Intervention through a Board Game for the Teaching of Mathematics to Dyslexic Greek Students" *Social Sciences* 10, no. 10: 370.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10100370