A program of research has combined the effectiveness of Direct Instruction curriculum design and mastery learning with the efficiency of technology to teach more cognitively complex skills. This article explains one example of this comprehensive intervention in detail. Findings from several studies are briefly reviewed. The purpose of this article is to document how such a comprehensive intervention reduces performance differences between students with learning disabilities and their peers, while using technology to minimize, or even reduce, the demands placed on the teacher.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckI. L.PerfettiC. A., & McKeownM. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506–521.
2.
BloomB. (1984). The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Leadership, 41(3), 4–17.
3.
CarnineD., & KinderD. (1985). Teaching low-performing students to apply generative and schema strategies to narrative and expository material. Remedial and Special Education, 6(1), 20–30.
4.
ClarkR. E., (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.
5.
CollinsM., & CarnineD. (1988). Evaluating the field test revision process by comparing two versions of a reasoning skills CAI program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(6), 375–379.
6.
CollinsM.CarnineD., & GerstenR. (1987). Elaborated corrective feedback and the acquisition of reasoning skills: A study of computer-assisted instruction. Exceptional Children, 51(3), 254–262.
7.
DarchC., & CarnineD. (1986). Approaches to teaching learning disabled students literal comprehension during content area instruction. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 240–246.
8.
DarchC.CarnineD., & GerstenR. (1984). Explicit instruction in mathematics problem solving. Journal of Educational Research, 77(66), 350–359.
9.
DeschlerD.SchumakerJ. B., & LenzB. L. (1984). Academic and cognitive interventions for LD adolescents: Part I. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 108–117.
10.
EngelmannS., & CarnineD. W. (1982). Theory of instruction. New York: Irvington.
11.
FuchsL. S. (1986). Monitoring progress among mildly handicapped pupils: Review of current practice and research. Remedial and Special Education, 7(5), 5–12.
12.
FuchsL.FuchsD.HamlettC. L., & HasselbringT. S. (1987). Using computers with curriculum-based monitoring: Effects on teacher efficiency and satisfaction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 8(4), 14–27.
13.
GerstenR. (1985). Direct instruction with special education students: A review of evaluation research. Journal of Special Education, 19(I), 41–50.
14.
GerstenR.WoodwardJ., & DarchC. (1986). Direct Instruction: A research-based approach to curriculum design and teaching. Exceptional Children, 53(1), 17–31.
15.
GleasonM. (in preparation). Direct Instruction on multi-step word problem with learning disabled secondary students. Eugene, OR: Department of Special Education, University of Oregon.
16.
GleasonM.CarnineD., & BorieroD. (in press). A comparison of CAI with teacher instruction in teaching math story problems to mildly handicapped students. Journal of Special Education Technology.
17.
GrossenB. (1988). A study of the effect of response form in computer-assisted instruction of class reasoning skills. Doctoral Dissertation. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
18.
GurneyD. (1987). Learning-disabled high school students tutor general education students on a computer simulation. Unpublished manuscript. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Follow Through Project.
19.
HasselbringT.SherwoodB., & BransfordJ. (1986) An evaluation of the Mastering Fractions level-one instructional videodisc program. Technical report. Nashville: The Learning Technology Center at Vanderbilt University.
20.
HofmeisterA.EngelmannS., & CarnineD. (in press). Developing and validating science education videodises. Science Education.
JohnsonG.GerstenR., & CarnineD. (1987). Set size and review procedures in CAI vocabulary instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(4), 206–213.
23.
KellyB.CarnineD.GerstenR., & GrossenB. (1986). The effectiveness of videodisc instruction in teaching fractions to learning handicapped and remedial high school students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 8(2), 5–17.
24.
KellyB.GerstenR., & CarnineD. (in press). Student error patterns as a function of instructional design: An analysis of two curricular for teaching fractions to low achieving students. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
25.
KellyB.GerstenR., & WoodwardJ. (in press). Research on teacher's implementation of an interactive videodisc curriculum. In Technology in the Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
26.
MooreL., & CarnineD. (in press). Evaluating curriculum design principles in the context of active teaching. Remedial and Special Education.
27.
RiethH., & FrickT. (1982). An analysis of academic learning time (ALT) of mildly handicapped students in special education service delivery systems: Initial report on classroom process variables. Bloomington, IN: Project ALT Center for Innovation in Teaching the Handicapped.
28.
ScruggsT. E., & RichterL. (1986). Tutoring learning disabled students: A critical review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 2–14.
29.
Systems Impact, Inc. (1985). Mastering Fractions. Washington, DC: Author.
30.
Systems Impact, Inc. (1987a). Earth Science. Washington, DC: Author.
31.
Systems Impact, Inc. (1987b). Introduction to Chemistry. Washington, DC: Author.
32.
WoodwardJ.CarnineD., & GerstenR. (1988). Teaching problem solving through a computer simulation. American Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 72–86.
33.
WivaggD. (1987). High school biology textbooks and college science teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 49(2), 71.
