This article describes a 3-year research project to develop an applications model to successfully integrate technology in the instruction of elementary school learners with mild and moderate handicaps. The model is based on decision theory and focuses specifically on the decisions of in-school agents (i.e., students, regular classroom teachers, instructional support personnel, and administrators). Decisions of these agents are considered with respect to four decision areas (i.e., identification of content, instructional methods and arrangements, organization of instruction, and outcome assessment).
Twenty research questions have been identified and clustered into five elements that represent the beginnings of an applications model. These five elements are: (1) software reference to the curriculum and IEP objectives, (2) integrated instructional activities, (3) collaborative planning, (4) student self-management, and (5) teacher training and support. Finally, this article provides a framework for understanding future project efforts as well as an orientation to the theoretical underpinnings of the research plan.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Institutes for Research. (1984). Optimal approaches to microcomputer implementation in the schools. (Available from Publications Office, Integration of Technology in the Curriculum American Institutes for Research, P.O. Box 1113, Palo Alto, CA 94302)
2.
ArcherP.ShawE. (1986). Project Interface: Identification of effective implementation strategies for integrating microcomputer instruction into ongoing educational services for the handicapped (Progress Rep.). Westbury, NY: Nassau BOCES, Office of Institutional Planning and Research.
3.
BehrmannM. (Ed.). (1984). Handbook of microcomputers in special education. San Diego: College-Hill Press.
4.
BickelW.E.BickelD.D. (1986). Effective schools, classrooms, and instruction: Implications for special education. Exceptional Children, 52, 489–500.
5.
BlackhurstA.E. (1987, January). More about special education microcomputing competencies than you ever wanted to know. Paper presented at the conference of the Technology and Media Division, Arlington, VA.
6.
BlackhurstA.E.MacArthurC.A. (1986). Microcomputer use in special education personnel preparation programs, Teacher Education and Special Education, 9, 27–36.
7.
BrowderD.M.ShapiroE.S. (1985). Applications of self-management to individuals with severe handicaps: A review. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10, 200–208.
8.
BudoffM.HuttenL.R. (1982). Microcomputers In special education: Promises and pitfalls. Exceptional Children, 49, 123–128.
9.
CohenJ. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academy Press.
10.
ColemanJ.HofferT.KilgoreS. (1982). High school achievement: Public and private schools compared. New York: Basic Books.
11.
DenzinN.K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
GallR.S. (1985, March). Keys to the world: A brief examination of microcomputer technology for telecommunications. Paper presented at the Computers for the Handicapped Conference, Baltimore.
13.
HanleyT.V. (1983). Microcomputer software in special education: Selection and management. Arlington, VA: SRA Technologies.
14.
HanleyT.V. (1984). CAI in special education: Research directions. Peabody Journal of Education, 62(1), 22–39.
15.
HofmeisterA. (1982). Microcomputers in perspective. Exceptional Children, 49, 115–122.
16.
HoyW.K.MiskelC.G. (1982). Educational administration, theory, research, and practice: Decision making (pp. 264–289). New York: Random House
17.
HummelJ.W. (1982). A successful inservice program on mainstreaming and the importance of teacher attitudes. Teacher Education and Special Education, 5(4), 7–14.
18.
HummelJ.W.ArcherP. (1987). Implementing the computer concept. In LindseyJ.D. (Ed.), Computers and exceptional individuals (pp. 207–228). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
19.
JacksonL.PanyanM.HummelJ. (1986). Conceptual foundations for a technology integration model (Contract No. 300-86-0125). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Technology in Human Disabilities.
LevineM.HummelJ.SalzerR. (1982). Mainstreaming requires something more: The person-environment fit. Clinical Psychology Review, 2, 1–25.
22.
MaxwellM. (1980). Improving student learning skills. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
MokrosJ.R.RussellS.J. (1986). Learner-centered software: A survey of microcomputer use with special needs students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 185–190.
SaponaR.H. (1985). Microcomputer use in resource rooms with learning disabled students. Paper presented at AERA National Conference, Chicago.
26.
SchubertW.H. (1986). Curriculum perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York: Macmillan.
27.
SemmelM.I. (1984). Instructional software for microcomputers: Differences in use across regular and special education environments (Tech. Rep No. 12.0). Santa Barbara, CA: Technology Effectiveness with Exceptional Children.
28.
SemmelM.I. (1986, June). Why invest in special education technology?Presentation at the Invitational Research Symposium on Special Education Technology, Washington, DC.
29.
SpeeceD.L.MandellC.J. (1980). Resource room support services for regular teachers. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 3(1), 49–53.
30.
StowitschekJ.J.StowitschekC.E. (1984). Once more with feeling: The absence of research on teacher use of microcomputers. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 4, 23–39.
31.
TobinD. (1985, March). Teacher training. A technology training program for special education teachers. Paper presented at Second National TAM Conference on Computers for the Handicapped, Baltimore.
32.
TorgesenJ.K. (1982). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 45–52.
