A longitudinal study of the development of Micro-Educational Environments (MEEs) and microcomputer use by learning handicapped and nonhandicapped students was initiated This report describes current MEEs and microcomputer-use patterns and changes in these programs and patterns over a 2-year period. Focus is on the differences in the types of microcomputer instruction provided to special and regular education students and their response to that instruction. The design and use of instructional programs once the novelty of the technology has worn off will be explored.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckerH.J. (1986a). Instructional uses of school computers (Issue #1). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools.
2.
BeckerH.J. (1986b). Instructional uses of school computers (Issue #3). Baltimore: John Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools.
3.
ChristensenC.A.CosdenM.A. (1986). The relationship between special education placement and instruction in computer literacy skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, 299–306.
4.
ClarkR.E. (1985). Confounding in educational computing research. Journal of Educational Computing Research1, 137–148.
5.
CosdenM.A. (1987). Microcomputer uses and perceptions of effectiveness by special and regular education elementary school teachers (Tech. Rep. No. 60). University of California, Santa Barbara: The Longitudinal Study of Micro-Educational Environments.
6.
CosdenM.A.GerberM.M.SemmelD.S.GoldmanS.R.SemmelM.I. (1985). Observational study of microcomputer use by special day class, resource room, and mainstream handicapped and nonhandicapped students (Tech. Rep. No. 8). University of California, Santa Barbara: Project TEECh.
7.
CosdenM.A.GerberM.M.SemmelD.S.GoldmanS.R.SemmelM.I. (1986). Survey of microcomputer access and use by mildly handicapped students in Southern California. Journal of Special Education Technology, 7(4), 5–13.
8.
CosdenM.A.GerberM.M.SemmelD.S.GoldmanS.R.SemmelM. (1987). Microcomputer use within micro-educational environments. Exceptional Children, 53, 399–409.
9.
CosdenM.A.LieberJ.A. (1986). Grouping students on the microcomputer. Academic Therapy, 22, 165–172.
10.
CosdenM.A.RemickB.J. (1986). Manual for the longitudinal study of micro-educational environments and microcomputer use by mildly handicapped students (Tech. Rep. No. 100). University of California, Santa Barbara: The Longitudinal Study of Micro-Educational Environments.
11.
FrickT.SemmelM.I. (1978). Observer agreement and reliabilities of classroom observational measures. Review of Educational Research, 48, 157–184.
12.
GerberM.M.CosdenM.A.GoldmanS.R.SemmelD.S.SemmelM.I. (in preparation). Sampling considerations for research on microcomputer effectiveness with mildly handicapped students (Tech. Rep. No. 2). University of California, Santa Barbara: Project TEECh.
GoldmanS.R.SemmelD.S.CosdenM.A.GerberM.M.SemmelM.I. (1987). Special education administrators' policies and practices on microcomputer acquisition, allocation, and access for mildly handicapped children: Interfaces with regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 330–339.
15.
GoldmanS.R.SemmelD.S.CosdenM.A.GerberM.M.SemmelM.I. (in preparation). Project TEECh Principal Survey Data (Tech. Rep. No. 11). University of California, Santa Barbara: Project TEECh.
16.
HogeR.D. (1985). The valdity of direct observation measure of pupil classroom behavior. Review of Educational Research, 55, 469–483.
17.
Learning (1986). What teachers had to say about using computers in today's schools. Learning, 14(7), 48–52.
18.
RussellS.J. (1986). But what are they learning? The dilemma of using microcomputers in special education. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 100–104.
19.
SalomonG.GardnerH. (1986). The computer as educator: Lessons from television research. Educational Researcher, 15, 13–19.
20.
SemmelD.S.GoldmanS.R.GerberM.M.CosdenM.A.SemmelM.I. (1985). Survey of special education and mainstream teachers' access to and use of microcomputers with mildly handicapped students (Tech. Rep. No. 9). University of California, Santa Barbara: Project TEECh.
21.
SemmelM.I.GerberM.M.SemmelD.S.CosdenM.A.GoldmanS.R. (1984). A conceptual model for understanding microcomputer effectiveness with mildly handicapped students (Tech. Rep. No. 1). University of California, Santa Barbara: Project TEECh.
22.
ShavelsonR.J.WinklerJ.D.StaszC.FeibelW. (1985). Patterns of microcomputer use in teaching mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, 395–413.
23.
ThurlowM.YsseldykeJ.GradenJ.AlgozzineB. (1983). What's “special” about the special education resource room for learning disabled students?Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 283–288.
24.
YsseldykeJ.ThurlowM.MecklenburgC.GradenJ. (1984). Opportunity to learn for regular and special education students during reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 29–37.
