Computer Programming With Pre-K Through First-Grade Students With Intellectual Disabilities

Abstract

Researchers suggest students in early elementary grade levels are active learners and creators and need to be exposed to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curriculum. The need for student understanding in STEM curriculum is well-documented, and positive results in robotics and computer programming are leading researchers and policy makers to introduce new standards in education. The purpose of this single-case design study is to research the potential for PreK-1st grade students with intellectual disabilities (ID) to learn skills in computer programming through explicit instruction, concrete manipulatives, and tangible interfaces. Students were assessed through baseline, treatment, and generalization phases. The students with ID were found to successfully program the robot, following explicit instruction, although they had difficulty generalizing skills to tablet application. Discussion of results, future research, and limitations is provided.

Keywords

intellectual disabilities elementary technology computer programming robotics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbeduto

Warren

S. F.

Conners

F. A.

(2007). Language development in Down syndrome: From the prelinguistic period to the acquisition of literacy. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 247–261. doi:10.1002/mrdd.20158

Adams

K. D.

Cook

A. M.

(2013). Programming and controlling robots using scanning on a speech generating communication device: A case study. Technology & Disability, 25, 275–286. doi:10.3233/TAD-140397

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Atkinson

(1984). Learning disabled students and LOGO. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 500–501. doi:10.1177/002221948401700812

Basham

J. D.

Israel

Maynard

(2010). An ecological model of STEM education: Operationalizing STEM for all. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(3), 9–19.

Basham

J. D.

Marino

M. T.

(2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 8–15.

Bass

J. E.

(1985). The roots of Logo’s education theory: An analysis. Computers in Schools, 2(2–3), 107–116. doi:10.1300/J025v02n02_13

Bers

M. U.

(2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2), 1–20.

Bers

M. U.

Flannery

Kazakoff

E. R.

Sullivan

(2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020

10.

Bers

M. U.

Ponte

Juelich

Viera

Schenker

(2002). Teachers as designers: Integrating robotics in early childhood education. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 14, 123–145.

11.

Browder

D. M.

Spooner

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Harris

A. A.

Wakeman

(2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 407–432. doi:10.1177/001440290807400401

12.

Browder

D. M.

Trela

Courtade

G. R.

Jimenez

B. A.

Knight

Flowers

(2012). Teaching mathematics and science standards to students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 46, 26–35. doi:10.1177/0022466910369942

13.

Carr

R. L.

Bennett

L. D.

IV Strobel

(2012). Engineering in the K-12 STEM standards of the 50 U.S. States: An Analysis of presence and extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101, 539–564. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00061.x

14.

Cassidy

E. D.

Colmenares

Jones

Manolovitz

Shen

Vieira

(2014). Higher education and emerging technologies: Shifting trends in student usage. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40, 124–133. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2014.02.003

15.

Chiang

Thorpe

H. W.

Lubke

(1984). LD students tackle the LOGO language: Strategies and implications. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 303–304. doi:10.1177/002221948401700513

16.

Cote

Pierce

Higgins

Miller

Tandy

Sparks

(2010). Increasing skill performances of problem solving in students with intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 512–524.

17.

Devlin

T. J.

Feldhaus

C. R.

Bentrem

K. M.

(2013). The evolving classroom: A study of traditional and technology-based instruction in a STEM classroom. Journal of Technology Education, 25(1), 34–54. doi:10.21061/jte.v25i1.a.3

18.

Doabler

C. T.

Fien

(2013). Explicit mathematics instruction: What teachers can do for teaching students with mathematics difficulties. Intervention in School & Clinic, 48, 276–285. doi:10.1177/1053451212473151

19.

Flores

M. M.

Hinton

V. M.

Strozier

S. D.

Terry

S. L.

(2014). Using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence and the strategic instruction model to teach computation to students with autism spectrum disorders and developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 547–554.

20.

Geist

(2016). Robots, programming and coding, oh my! Childhood Education, 92, 298–304.

21.

Goharpey

Crewther

D. P.

Crewther

S. G.

(2013). Problem solving ability in children with intellectual disability as measured by the Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 4366–4374. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.09.013

22.

Israel

Wherfel

Q. M.

Pearson

Shehab

Tapia

(2015). Empowering K–12 students with disabilities to learn computational thinking and computer programming. Teaching Exceptional Children, 48, 45–53. doi:10.1177/0040059915594790

23.

Jimenez

B. A.

Browder

D. M.

Courtade

G. R.

(2008). Teaching an algebraic equation to high school students with moderate developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 266–274.

24.

Kalelioğlu

(2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code.org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200–210. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.047

25.

Lange

(1985). Using the turtle tot robot to enhance logo for the hearing impaired. American Annals of the Deaf, 130, 377–382. doi:10.1353/aad.2012.0935

26.

Lottero-Perdue

P. S.

Lovelidge

Bowling

(2010). Engineering for all. Science and Children, 47(7), 24–27.

27.

Lye

S. Y.

Koh

J. H. L.

(2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012

28.

Miller

Doughty

Krockover

(2015). Using science inquiry methods to promote self-determination and problem-solving skills for students with moderate intellectual disability. Education & Training in Autism & Developmental Disabilities, 50, 356–368.

29.

Miller

(2009). Learning with a missing sense: What can we learn from the interaction of a deaf child with a turtle? American Annals of the Deaf, 154, 71–82. doi:10.1353/aad.0.0075

30.

National Media Consortium. (2017). NMC/CoSN Horizon report preview: 2017 K-12 edition. Retrieved from https://cdn.nmc.org/media/2017-nmc-cosn-horizon-report-k12-preview.pdf

31.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

32.

Nickels

(2014). Meaningful measurement: Addressing equity through STEM. Wisconsin Teacher of Mathematics, 66(1), 8–12.

33.

Papert

(1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.

34.

Papert

(1985). Different visions of logo. Computers in the Schools, 2(2/3), 3–8.

35.

Parker

R. I.

Vannest

K. J.

Davis

J. L.

(2011). Effect size in single-case research: A review of nine nonoverlap techniques. Behavior Modification, 35, 303–322.

36.

Polloway

E. A.

Patton

J. R.

Marvalin

N. A.

(2011). Intellectual and developmental disabilities. In Kaufman

J. M.

Hallahan

D. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 175–186). New York, NY: Routledge.

37.

Ratcliff

C. C.

Anderson

S. E.

(2011). Reviving the turtle: Exploring the use of logo with students with mild disabilities. Computers in the Schools, 28, 241–255. doi:10.1080/07380569.2011.594987

38.

Rücker

M. T.

Pinkwart

(2016). Review and discussion of children’s conceptions of computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 274–283. doi:10.1007/s10956-015-9592-2

39.

Sullivan

Kazakoff

E. R.

Bers

M. U.

(2013). The wheels on the bot go round and round: Robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 12, 203–219.

40.

Sullivan

F. R.

Heffernan

(2016). Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives for learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48, 105–128. doi:10.1080/15391523.2016.1146563

41.

Taylor

M. S.

Vasquez

Donehower

(2017). Computer programming with early elementary students with Down syndrome. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32, 149–159. doi:10.1177/0162643417704439

42.

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education (National Education Technology Plan No. ED-04-CO-0040/0010). Washington, DC. Available from http://tech.ed.gov

43.

Vannest

K. J.

Parker

R. I.

Gonen

(2016). Single case research: Web based calculators for SCR analysis (Version 1.0). College Station: Texas A&M University. Available from http://www.singlecaseresearch.org/

44.

Varney

M. W.

Janoudi

Aslam

D. M.

Graham

(2012). Building young engineers: TASEM for third graders in Woodcreek Magnet Elementary School. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55, 78–82. doi:10.1109/TE.2011.2131143

45.

Vilorio

(2014). STEM 101: Intro to tomorrow’s jobs (Occupational Outlook Quarterly, pp. 1–12). Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/ooq

46.

What Works Clearinghouse^TM: Procedures and standards handbook (version 3.0). (2014). Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf

47.

Whitehouse Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2015). Preparing Americans with 21st century skills: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in the 2015 budget. Retrieved from www.whitehouse.gov/ostp

48.

Wolf

M. M.

(1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214. doi:10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203

49.

Yudin

Musgrove

(2015). Guidance on FAPE: Dear Colleague Letter. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/guidance-on-fape-11-17-2015.pdf