The Effects of Computer-Assisted Versus Teacher-Directed Instruction on the Multiplication Performance of Elementary Students with Learning Disabilities
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 1996
The Effects of Computer-Assisted Versus Teacher-Directed Instruction on the Multiplication Performance of Elementary Students with Learning Disabilities
The acquisition of multiplication facts by 4 elementary students with learning disabilities was compared under two instructional delivery formats—teacher directed and computer assisted. The two interventions were compared in terms of opportunities to respond and success rate. All students mastered more facts in the teacher-directed condition. In addition, teachers provided many more opportunities to respond and showed a higher success rate than did the software program. Implications of teacher-directed and computer-assisted instruction are discussed in terms of efficacy and feasibility.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Becker, H. J. (1991). How computers are used in United States schools: Basic data from the 1989 I.E.A. computers in education survey. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7, 385–406.
2.
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model for school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733.
3.
Chiang, B. (1986). Initial learning and transfer effects of microcomputer drills on LD students' multiplication skills. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 118–123.
4.
Collins, M., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1987). Elaborated corrective feedback and the acquisition of reasoning skills: A study of computer assisted instruction. Exceptional Children, 54, 254–262.
5.
Cosden, M. A. (1988). Microcomputer instruction and perceptions of effectiveness by special and general education elementary school teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 11, 242–253.
6.
Cosden, M. A., & Abernathy, T. V. (1990). Microcomputer use in the schools: Teacher roles and instructional options. Remedial and Special Education, 11(5), 31–38.
7.
Eckert, R., & Davidson, J. (1987). Math blaster plus[Computer software]. Torrance, CA: Davidson & Associates.
8.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294–309.
9.
Harris, K., Graham, S., Reid, R., McElroy, K., & Hamby, R. S. (1994). Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of performance: Replication and cross-task comparison studies. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 121–139.
10.
Hasselbring, T., Goin, L., & Bransford, J. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20(6), 1–7.
11.
Haynes, M. C., & Jenkins, J. (1986). Reading instruction in special education resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 161–190.
12.
Kaufman, A., & Kaufman, N. (1985). Kaufman test of educational achievement.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
13.
Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–94.
14.
Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1987). Review of recent research literature on computer-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 222–230.
15.
Majsterek, D., & Wilson, R. (1989). Computer-assisted instruction for students with learning disabilities: Considerations for practitioners. Learning Disabilities Focus, 5, 18–27.
16.
Majsterek, D., & Wilson, R. (1993). Computer-assisted instruction (CAI): An update on applications for students with learning disabilities. LD Forum, 19(1), 19–21.
17.
Miller, J. H., & Milam, C. P. (1987). Multiplication and division errors committed by learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 119–122.
18.
Pellegrino, J. W., & Goldman, S. R. (1987). Information processing and elementary mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 23-32, 57.
19.
Rosenshine, B. (1983). Teaching functions in instructional programs. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 335–351.
20.
Salisbury, D. G. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications for designing drill and practice activities for the computer. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17, 22–30.
21.
Schmidt, M., Weinstein, T., Niemic, R., & Walberg, H. J. (1985-86). Computer-assisted instruction with exceptional children. The Journal of Special Education, 19, 493–501.
22.
Sindelar, P., Rosenberg, M., & Wilson, R. (1989). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional purposes. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.
23.
Trifiletti, J. J., Frith, G. H., & Armstrong, S. (1984). Microcomputers versus resource rooms for LD students: A preliminary investigation of the effects on math skills. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 69–76.
24.
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (1992). Fourteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.Washington, DC: Author.
25.
Watkins, M. W., & Webb, C. (1981). Computer assisted instruction with learning disabled students. Educational Computer Magazine, 1(3), 24–27.
26.
Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler intelligence scale for children-Revised.San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
27.
Wilson, R. Majsterek, D. & Simmons, D. (1994). Teaching math facts purposefully. Unpublished manuscript.
28.
Wilson, R., & Wesson, C. (1986). Making every minute count: Academic learning time in LD classrooms. Learning Disabilities Focus, 2, 13–19.
29.
Woodward, J., Carnine, D., Gersten, R., Gleason, M., Johnson, G., & Collins, M. (1986). Applying instructional design principles to CAI for mildly handicapped students: Four recently conducted studies. Journal of Special Education Technology, 8, 13–26.
