Cooperative learning (CD is a common instructional arrangement that is used by classroom teachers to foster academic achievement and social acceptance of students with and without learning disabilities. Cooperative learning is appealing to classroom teachers because it can provide an opportunity for more instruction and feedback by peers than can be provided by teachers to individual students who require extra assistance. Recent studies suggest that students with LD may need adaptations during cooperative learning activities. The use of assistive technology adaptations may be necessary to help some students with LD compensate for their specific learning difficulties so that they can engage more readily in cooperative learning activities. A process for integrating technology adaptations into cooperative learning activities is discussed in terms of three components: selecting adaptations, monitoring the use of the adaptations during cooperative learning activities, and evaluating the adaptations' effectiveness. The article concludes with comments regarding barriers to and support systems for technology integration, technology and effective instructional practices, and the need to consider technology adaptations for students who have learning disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson-Inman, L., Knox-Quinn, C., & Horney, M. A. (1996). Computer-based study strategies for students with learning disabilities: Individual differences associated with adoption level. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 461–484.
2.
Barton, R. S., & Fuhrmann, B. S. (1994). Counseling and psychotherapy for adults with learning disabilities. In P. J. Gerber & H. B. Reiff (Eds.), Learning disabilities in adulthood: Persisting problems and evolving issues (pp. 82–92). Stoneham, MA: Andover Medical.
3.
Behrmann, M. M. (1994). Assistive technology for students with mild disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30, 70–83.
4.
Blackstone, S. (1990, November). Assistive technology in the classroom: Issues and guidelines. Augmentative Communication News, 3(6), 1–4.
5.
Bowser, G., & Reed, P. (1995). Education TECH points for assistive technology planning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12, 325–338.
6.
Bragman, R.Integrating technology into a student's IEP. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 1987, 8(2), 34–38.
7.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan.
8.
Brown, C. (1989). Computer access in higher education for students with disabilities: A practical guide to the selection and use of adapted computer technology (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education.
9.
Bryant, B. R., & Rivera, D. P. (1995, November). Cooperative learning: Teaching in an age of technology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Learning Disabilities Association of Texas, Austin, TX.
10.
Bryant, B. R., Rivera, D., & Warde, B.Technology as a means to an end: Facilitating success at the college level. LD Forum, 1993, 19(1), 13–18.
11.
Carney, J., & Dix, C. (1992). Integrating assistive technology in the classroom and community. In G. Church & S. Glennen, The handbook of assistive technology (pp. 207–240). San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing.
12.
Chiang, B. (1986). Initial learning and transfer effects of micro-computer drills on LD students' multiplication skills. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 118–123.
13.
Christenson, S. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Thurlow, M. L.Critical instructional factors for students with mild handicaps: An integrative review. Remedial and Special Education, 1989, 10(5), 21–31.
14.
Church, G., & Glennen, S. (1992). The handbook of assistive technology.San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing.
15.
Cosden, M. A., Goldman, S. R., & Hine, M. S. (1990). Learning handicapped students' interactions during a microcomputer-based writing activity. Journal of Special Education Technology, 10, 220–232.
16.
Cosden, M., Pearl, R., & Bryan, T. H. (1985). The effects of cooperative and individual goal structures on learning disabled and nondisabled students. Exceptional Children, 52, 103–114.
17.
Dansereau, D. (1988). Cooperative learning strategies. In C. Weinstein, E. Goetz, & P. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies (pp. 103–120). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
18.
Day, S. L., & Edwards, B. J. (1996). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 486–492, 503.
19.
Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1986). Learning strategies: An instructional alternative for low-achieving adolescents. Exceptional Children, 52, 583–590.
20.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), 20 U.S.C. sections 1400 et seq. and amendments.
21.
Edyburn, D. L.Aligning technology tools with powerful instructional interventions. LD Forum, 1992, 18(1), 31–35.
22.
Edyburn, D. L. (1992, April). Classroom implications for research on computer-based and hand-held spelling correction systems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Baltimore.
23.
Ellis, E. (1996). Reading instruction. In D. D. Deshler, E. S. Ellis, & B. K. Lenz (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 61–126). Denver: Love.
24.
Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. (1996). Including students with special needs.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
25.
Fuchs, L. S., Bahr, C. M., & Rieth, H. J. (1989). Effects of goal structures and performance contingencies on the math performance oi adolescents with learning disabilities, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 554–559.
26.
Garner. J., & Campbell, P. (1987). Technology for persons with severe disabilities: Practical and ethical considerations. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 24–32.
27.
Hanley, T. V., Appel, L. S., & Harris, C. D.Technological innovation in the context of special education systems: A qualitative and structured research approach. Journal of Special Education Technology, 1988, 9(2), 98–108.
28.
Higgins, K., Boone, R., & Lovitt, T. C. (1996). Hypertext support for remedial students and students with learning disabilities. Jornal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 402–412.
29.
Hughes, C. A. (1996). Memory and test-taking strategies. In D. D. Deshler, E. S. Ellis, & B. K. Lenz (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 209–266). Denver: Love.
30.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1986). Mainstreaming and cooperative learning strategies. Exceptional Children, 52, 553–561.
31.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1991). Cooperation in the classroom.Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.
32.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994). The new circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom and school.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
33.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Holubec, E. J., & Roy, P. (1984). Circles of learning.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
34.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Warring, D., & Maruyama, G. (1986). Different cooperative learning procedures and cross-handicap relationships. Exceptional Children, 53, 247–252.
35.
Koscinski, S. T., & Gast, D. L. (1993). Computer-assisted instruction with constant time delay to teach multiplication facts to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 157–168.
36.
Lewis, R. (1993). Special education technology.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
37.
Lloyd, J. W., Crowley, E. P., Kohler, F. W., & Strain, P. S. (1988). Redefining the applied research agenda: Cooperative learning, prereferral, teacher consultation, and peer-mediated interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 43–52.
38.
MacArthur, C. A. (1988). The impact of computers on the writing process. Exceptional Children, 54, 536–542.
39.
MacArthur, C. A.Beyond word processing: Computer support for writing processes. LD Forum, 1993, 29(1), 22–27.
40.
MacArthur, C. A. (1996). Using technology to enhance the writing processes of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 344–354.
41.
MacArthur, C. A., & Haynes, J. A. (1995). Student assistant for learning from text (SALT): A hypermedia reading aid. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 150–159.
42.
MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S. S., & Graham, S. (1991). A model for writing instruction: Integrating word processing and strategy instruction into a process approach to writing. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 230–236.
43.
Male, M. (1997). Technology for inclusion (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
44.
McGregor, G., & Pachuski, P. (1996). Assistive technology in schools: Are teachers ready, able, and supported? Journal of Special Education Technology, 13, 4–15.
45.
Miller, S. P. (1996). Perspectives on mathematics instruction. In D. D. Deshler, E. S. Ellis, & B. K. Lenz (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 313–368). Denver: Love.
46.
Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Business Education Alliance
47.
O'Connor, R., & Jenkins, J. R. (1994). Cooperative learning as an inclusion strategy: A closer look.Seattle: University of Washington.
48.
Olson, R., Foltz, G., & Wise, B.Reading instruction and remediation with the aid of computer speech. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 1986, 18(2), 93–99.
49.
Panyan, M. V., Hummel, J., & Jackson, L. B. (1988). The integration of technology in the curriculum. Journal of Special Education Technology, 9, 109–119.
50.
Raskind, M., & Bryant, B. R. (1996). Functional evaluation of assistive technology. Unpublished manuscript.
51.
Raskind, M., & Shaw, T. (1996, March). An overview: Assistive technology for students with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the Council for Learning Disabilities Assistive Technology Symposium, Las Vegas.
52.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Section 504, 19 U.S.C. section 794.
53.
Rich, Y. (1993). Education and instruction in heterogeneous classes.Springfield, IL: Thomas.
54.
Richards, D. (1995). Assistive technology: Birth to five years.Cromwell, CT: Conn-Sense.
55.
Riegel, R. H. (1988). A guide to cooperative consultation.Jason Court, MI: RHR Consultation Services.
56.
Rieth, H. J., & Evertson, C.Variables related to the effective instruction of difficult-to-teach children. Focus on Exceptional Children, 1988, 20(5), 1–8.
57.
Rivera, D. P., & Smith, D. D. (1997). Teaching students with learning and behavior problems (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
58.
Roth, S. F., & Beck, I. L. (1987). Theoretical and instructional implications of the assessment of two micro-computer word recognition programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 197–218.
59.
Schrag, J. (1990). OSEP policy letter.Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education.
60.
Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D.Setting demand variables: A major factor in program planning for the LD adolescent. Topics in Language Disorders, 1984, 4(2), 22–40.
61.
Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S.Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General classroom teachers' perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 1991, 12(4), 18–27.
62.
Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Gordon, J., & Rothlein, L. (1994). General education teachers' beliefs, skills, and practices in planning for mainstreamed students with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 22–37.
63.
Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., & Saumell, L. (1994). Assisting students with difficult textbooks: Teacher perceptions and practices. Reading Research and Instruction, 34, 39–56.
64.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241–271.
65.
Sheingold, K.Restructuring for learning with technology: The potential for synergy. Phi Delta Kappan, 1991, 73(1), 17–27.
66.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Leavey, M. (1984). Effects of team assisted individualization on the mathematics achievement of academically handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 813–819.
67.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Madden, N. A.Accommodating student diversity in reading and writing instruction: A cooperative learning approach. Remedial and Special Education, 1988, 9(1), 60–66.
68.
Suritsky, S. K., & Hughes, C. A. (1996). Notetaking strategy instruction. In D. D. Deshler, E. S. Ellis, & B. K. Lenz (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 267–312). Denver: Love.
69.
Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C. section 2201.
70.
van Daal, V.H.P., & Reitsma, P.Effects of independent word practice with segmented and whole-word sound feedback in disabled readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 1990, 23(2), 133–148.
71.
Wetzel, K. (1993). Speaking to write: Can students with learning disabilities learn to use speech recognition technology to enhance written communication?LD Forum, 19(1), 38–46.
