In this study, we examined whether a teacher-paced video (TPV) accommodation or a student-paced computer (SPC) accommodation provided differential access for students with disabilities versus their general education peers on a large-scale math test. Our results showed a statistically significant main effect for students' status. General education students outperformed students with disabilities on both the SPC and TPV math tests. When TPV versus SPC scores were analyzed by status, it was found that pacing significantly influenced the mean scores. In other words, the mean scores for students with disabilities and the lowest general education students provided differential access when the accommodation was student-paced on a computer versus when the teacher paced the accommodation via the video.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdelmanH.S., & TaylorL. (1984). A helpline for learning problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 237–239.
2.
Authorware [Computer software]. (1997). San Francisco, CA: Macromedia, Inc.
3.
BellandJ.C.TaylorW.D.CanelosJ.DwyerF., & BakerP. (1985). Is the self-paced instructional program, via microcomputer-based instruction, the most effective method of addressing individual learning differences?Educational Communication and Technology, 33(3), 185–198.
4.
BrophyJ. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership, 45(2), 40–48.
CarnineD.W. (1976). Effects on two teacher presentation rates on off-task behavior, answering correctly, and participation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 2, 199–206.
7.
CennamoK. S. (1993). Students' perceptions of the ease of learning from computer and interactive video: An exploratory study. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 21, 251–63.
8.
ChiuC.W.T., & PearsonP.D. (1999). Synthesizing the effects of test accommodations for special education and limited English proficient students. Paper presented at the 1999 National conference on Large Scale Assessment, Snowbird, UT.
9.
CordovaD.I., & LepperM.R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715–730.
10.
CoxJ.M., & PoeV.L. (1991). The math-reading connection: A graded word list to estimate mathematics ability. Reading Improvement, 28(2), 108–112.
11.
CurtisH. A., & KroppR. P. (1961). A comparison of scores obtained by administering a test normally and visually. Journal of Experimental Education, 29, 249–260.
12.
DesLauriersM.P.HohnR.L., & ClarkG.M. (1980). Learner characteristics and performance effects in self-paced instruction for community college students. Teaching of Psychology, 7, 161–163.
13.
DevP.C. (1998). Intrinsic motivation and the student with learning disabilities. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31, 98–108.
14.
Director [Computer software]. (1995). San Francisco, CA: Macromedia, Inc.
15.
FuchsL.S. (April 1999). Curriculum-based measurement: Updates on its application in standards-based assessment systems. Council of Exceptional Children: Reston, VA.
16.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD.EatonS.B.HamlettC., & KarnsK. (1999). Mathematics test accommodations for students with learning disabilities: Supplementing teacher judgments with the dynamic assessment of test accommodations. Unpublished manuscript, Peabody College of Vanderbilt University.
17.
FulfordC. P., & ZhangS. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education7, (3), 8–21.
18.
GallM.D.BorgW.R., & GallJ.P. (1996). Educational research (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
19.
GrolnickW.S., & RyanR.M. (1990). Self-perceptions, motivation, and adjustment in children with learning disabilities: A multiple group comparison study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 177–184.
20.
GropperG.L. (1964). The influence of external pacing of learning from programmed instruction (Report 2). Pittsburgh, PA: AIRBS.
21.
HaywoodH.C. (1968). Brain damage in school age children. Washington, D.C.: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 028 584).
22.
HelwigR.Rozek-TedescoM.A.TindalG.HeathB., & AlmondP. (1999). Reading as an access to mathematics problem solving on multiple choice tests for sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 113–125.
23.
HogbenL. (1970). The contemporary crisis or the uncertainties of uncertain inference. In MorrisonD.E. & HenkelR.E. (Eds.), The significance test controversy: A reader (pp. 8–21). Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing.
JenkinsJ.R., & PanyD. (1980). Research on reading comprehension. In GuthrieJ. (Ed), Reading comprehension and education. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
26.
JenkinsJ.R.SteinM., & OsburnJ. (1981). What next after decoding? Instruction and research in reading comprehension. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 2(1), 27–31.
27.
KoretzD. & HamiltonL. (1999). Assessing students with disabilities in Kentucky: The effects of accommodations, format, and subject (CSE Technical Report 498). Los Angeles: UCLA, CRESST.
28.
LykkenD.T. (1970). Statistical significance in psychological research. In MorrisonD.E. & HenkelR.E. (Eds.), The significance test controversy: A reader (pp. 267–279). Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing.
MehringT.A., & ColsonS.E. (1990). Motivation and mildly handicapped learners. Focus on Exceptional Children, 22(5), 1–14.
31.
MessickS. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validity of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23 (2), 13–23.
32.
MessickS. (1996). Validity of performance assessments. In PhillipsG.W. (Ed.), Technical issues in large-scale performance assessment (pp. 1–18). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
33.
NewmanM. A. (1977). An analysis of sixth-grade pupils' errors on written mathematical tasks. In ClementsM. A. and FoysterJ. (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australia (pp. 239–258), Volume 1. Melbourne: Swineburne Press.
34.
PintrichP.R.AndermanE.M., & KlobucarC. (1994). Intra-individual differences in motivation and cognition in students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 360–370.
35.
PintrichP.R., & DeGrootE.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
36.
PintrichP.R., & SchunkD.H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
37.
Premiere [Computer software]. (1998). San Jose, CA: Adobe Systems, Inc.
38.
SchultzG.F., & SwitzkyH.N. (1990). The development of intrinsic motivation in students with learning problems: Suggestions for more effective instructional practice. Preventing School Failure, 34(2), 14–20.
39.
SotoL.D. (1988). The motivational orientation of higher and lower achieving Puerto Rican children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 6, 199–206.
40.
SotoL.D. (1989). The motivational orientation of higher and lower achieving Puerto Rican children. Educational Research Quarterly, 13(1), 22–36.
41.
TackK. D. (1995). The influence of reading skills on the Ohio Ninth Grade Proficiency Test of Mathematics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 386 703).
42.
ThurlowM.L.ScottD.C., & YsseldykeJ.E. (1995). A Compilation of states' guidelines for accommodations in assessments for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 18). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
43.
ThurlowM.L.YsseldykeJ.E., & SilversteinB. (1993). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: A review of the literature (Synthesis Report 4). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
44.
ThurlowM.L.YsseldykeJ.E., & SilversteinB. (1995). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 260–270.
45.
TindalG., & FuchsL. (1999). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations. Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional Resource Center.
46.
TindalG.HeathB.HollenbeckK.AlmondP. & HarnissM. (1998). Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children, 64, 439–450.
47.
TindalG.HollenbeckK.HeathW., & AlmondP., (1997). The effect of using computers as an accommodation in a statewide writing test (Technical Research Report). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Behavioral Research and Teaching.
48.
WestonT. (April 1999). The validity of oral presentation in testing. Montreal, Canada: American Educational Research Association.
49.
WilsonD.R., & DavidW.J.A. (1994). Academic intrinsic motivation and attitudes toward school and learning of learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 148–156.
50.
YellM.L. & ShrinerJ.G. (1996). Inclusive Education: Legal and Policy Implications. Preventing School Failure, 40, 101–08.
