Increased demand for accountability in the public schools has led to an increase in the number of testing situations for all students, including students with disabilities. The purpose of this project was to develop and validate an interactive hypermedia (IH) program to teach a test-taking strategy to secondary-level students with disabilities. The program was designed to deliver a substantial portion of instruction needed for students to master the strategy. The strategy for which the IH was developed and tested in this study is The Test-Taking Strategy (Hughes, Schumaker, Deshler, & Mercer, 1988). With input from student, teacher, design, and technical consultants, the IH program was created. Students who have learning disabilities, behavior disorders, and other health impairments learned the strategy via the IH program. A multiple-baseline design was used to show the effects of the instruction. The effectiveness of the IH program in teaching students with learning disabilities to use the strategy was found to be comparable to live instruction. Further research is warranted to determine if this medium is feasible in inclusive classrooms and effective in teaching students other types of strategies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeidelD. C.TurnerS. M.Taylor-FerreiraJ. C. (1999). Teaching study skills and test-taking strategies to elementary school students: The testbusters program. Behavior Modification, 23, 630–646.
2.
BottgeB. A.HasselbringT. S. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children, 59, 556–566.
3.
BulgrenJ. A.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (1988). Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(1), 3–17.
4.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Dallas, TX: Houghton Mifflin.
5.
ChaleffC.ToranzoN. (2000). Helping our students meet the standards through test preparation classes. American Annals of the Deaf, 145(1), 33–40.
6.
CohenJ. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
CollinsM.CarnineD.GerstenR. (1987). Elaborative corrective feedback and the acquisition of reasoning skills: A study of computer-assisted instruction. Exceptional Children, 54, 254–262.
8.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2001). Council of Chief State School Officers' Annual Survey of State Student Assessment Programs. Retrieved data from: http://www.ccsso.org/naepprofiles.
9.
EgelkoB. (2002). State must provide for disabled on test. San Francisco Chronicle, February 22, p. A21.
10.
EllisE. S. (1997). Watering up the curriculum for adolescents with mild disabilities: Part I – The knowledge dimension. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 326–346.
11.
EllisE. S.DeshlerD. D.LenzB. K.SchumakerJ. B.ClarkF. L. (1991). An instructional model for teaching learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23(6), 1–24.
12.
GilbertS. D. (1998). How to do best on tests: School survival guide. New York: HarperTrophy.
13.
GrossenB.CarnineD. (1990). Diagramming a logic strategy: Effects on difficult problem types and transfer. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 168–181.
14.
HigginsK.BooneR. (1990a). Hypertext: A new vehicle for computer use in reading instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 26(1), 26–31.
15.
HigginsK.BooneR. (1990b). Hypertext computer study guides and the social studies achievement of students with learning disabilities, remedial students, and regular education students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 529–540.
16.
HooverJ. P. (2002). A dozen ways to raise students' test performance. Principal, 81(3), 17–18.
17.
HornerR. D.BaerD. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.
18.
HortonS. V.BooneR.A.LovittT. C. (1990). Teaching social studies to learning disabled high school students: Effects of a hypertext study guide. British Journal of Technology, 21(2), 118–131.
19.
HughesC. A.DeshlerD. D.RuhlK. L.SchumakerJ. B. (1993). Test-taking strategy instruction for adolescents with emotional and behavior disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 189–198.
20.
HughesC. A.SchumakerJ. B. (1991). Test-taking strategy instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 2, 205–221.
21.
HughesC. A.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D.MercerC. (1988). The test-taking strategy: Instructor's manual. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises, Inc.
22.
KellyB.GerstenR.CarnineD. (1990). Student error patterns as a function of curriculum design: Teaching fractions to remedial high school students and high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(1), 23–29.
23.
LancasterP. E. (1999). The development and validation of an interactive hypermedia program for teaching a self-advocacy strategy to students with disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
24.
LancasterP. E.LancasterS. J. (in press). The Self-Advocacy CD-ROM. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.
25.
LancasterP. E.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (2002). The development and validation of an interactive hypermedia program for teaching a self-advocacy strategy to students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 277–302.
26.
MarchioniniG. (1988, November). Hypermedia and learning: Freedom and chaos. Educational Technology, 8–12.
27.
MeyersJ. N. (2000). The secrets of taking any test (2nd ed.). New York: Learning Express.
28.
New York State Education Department (2003). 2003 pocketbook of goals and results for individuals with disabilities. New York: The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities.
29.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, STAT. 142.
30.
OlsonL. (2000a). Worries of a standards “backlash” grow. Education Week, 30, 1–13.
31.
OlsonL. (2000b). Indiana case focused on special education: Suit challenges high stakes testing. Education Week, 38, 1–15.
32.
PolanskyH. B. (2000). Student testing: Understanding what it is all about. School Business Affairs, 66(10), 30–32.
33.
PutnamM. L. (1992). The testing practices of mainstream secondary classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 13(5), 11–21.
34.
QuenemoenR.MarionS. (2003). Rethinking basic assumptions of test development: Assessment frameworks for inclusive accountability tests (Policy Directions No. 17). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy17.htm.
35.
SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (1994). Secondary classes can be inclusive too. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 50–51.
36.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (1988). Are learning disabled students “test-wise”?: A review of recent research. Learning Disabilities Focus, 3, 87–97.
37.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (1992). Teaching test-taking skills: Helping students show what they know. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
38.
SeigelS.CastellanN. J.Jr. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
39.
SzulL. F.WoodlandD. E. (1998, February). Does the right software a great designer make?Technology Horizons in Education, 48–49.
40.
Van ReusenA. K.BosC. S.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (1994). The self-advocacy strategy for education and transition planning. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.
41.
VaughnS.GerstenR.ChardD. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 99–114.
42.
XinJ. F.ReithH. (2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school students with learning disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 87–103.
