This report summarizes the results of a study in which a computer-assisted tutorial was compared to a teacher-assisted group in teaching multiplication and division math story problems to mildly handicapped middle school students. The same curriculum was used for both conditions; the only difference between the two instructional approaches was the medium used to communicate instruction to the students. Comparisons of scores from a pretest, two posttests, and one of two transfer tests demonstrated no significant differences between the groups; however, both groups showed a significant improvement from pretest to posttest scores. Comparisons are made with an earlier study in which neither group learned from the instruction. Results from the two studies indicate that, when sound instructional design principles are used to design CAI, the computer can be an effective instructional medium for mildly handicapped students, even for a complex skill such as math story problems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BorieroD. (1987). A comparison of CAI with teacher instruction in teaching math story problems to mildly handicapped students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
2.
BumsP.K.BozemanW.C. (1981). Computer-assisted instruction and mathematics achievement: Is there a relationship?Educational Technology, 21, 32–39.
3.
CarlsonS.A.SilvermanR. (1986). Microcomputers and computer-assisted instruction in special education classrooms: Do we need the teacher? LearningDisability Quarterly, 9, 105–110.
ChiangA. (1978). Demonstration of the use of computer-assisted instruction with handicapped children (Report No. 466-AM-60076A). Arlington, VA: RMC Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 166913)
6.
ClarkR.E. (1985). Confounding in educational computing research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, 137–148.
7.
CollinsM.CarnineD. (1988). Evaluating the field test revision process by comparing two versions of a reasoning skills CAI program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 375–379.
8.
DurostW.N.BixlerH.WrightstoneJ.PrescottG.BalowI. (1971). Metropolitan Achievement Test. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corp.
9.
EllisE.S.SabomieE.J. (1986). Effective instruction with microcomputers: Promises, practices, and preliminary findings. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(4), 1–16.
10.
EngelmannS.CarnineD.W. (1982). Theory of instruction. New York: Irvington.
11.
FisherC.W.BerlinerD.C.FilbyN.N.MarliaveR.CahenL.S.DishawM.M. (1980). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. In DenhamC.LiebermanA. (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 7–32). Washington, DC: United States Office of Education/NIE Printing.
12.
FormanD. (1982). Search of the literature. The Computing Teacher, 9, 37–51.
13.
GleasonM.M. (1985). A comparison of two CAI approaches in teaching math word problems to handicapped learners. Unpublished dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
14.
GleasonM.M.CarnineD.MooreL. (1986). Multiplication and division word problems. Unpublished computer program. Eugene, OR: Engelmann-Becker Corp.
15.
GleasonM.M.CarnineD.MooreL.BorieroD.M. (1986). Multiplication and division word problems. Unpublished manuscript. Eugene, OR: Engelmann-Becker Corp.
16.
HanleyR. (1984). CAI in special education: Research directions. Peabody Journal of Education, 62(1), 22–39.
17.
HomerR.H.BellamyG.T.ColvinG.T. (1985). Responding in the presence of nontrained stimuli: Implications of generalization error patterns. Journal of the Association for Severely Handicapped, 7(3), 7–20.
18.
JennanM.E.MinnanS. (1974). Linguistic and computational variables in problem solving in elementary mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 4, 306–323.
19.
KulikJ.A.BangertR.L.WilliamsG.W. (1983). Effects of computer-based teaching on secondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 19–26.
20.
LieberJ.SemmelM.I. (1985). Effectiveness of computer application to instruction with mildly handicapped learners: A review. Remedial and Special Education, 6(5), 5–12.
21.
LinvilleW.J. (1976). Syntax, vocabulary, and the verbal arithmetic problem. School Science and Mathematics, 76, 152–158.
22.
MacArthurC.A.HaynesJ.A.MaloufD.B. (1986). Learning disabled students' engaged time and classroom interaction: The impact of computer assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, 189–198.
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.
24.
RincoverA.KoegelR.L. (1975). Setting generality and stimulus control in autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 235–246.
25.
SalomonG.GardnerH. (1986). The computer as educator: Lessons from television research. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 13–19.
26.
TorgesonJ.K. (1966). Using computers to help learning disabled children practice reading: A research-based perspective. Learning Disabilities Focus, 1, 72–81.
27.
WahlerR.G.FoxJ.J. (1981). Setting events in applied behavior analysis: Toward a conceptual and methodological expansion. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 327–338.
28.
WheelerL.J.McNuttG. (1983). The effect of syntax on low-achieving students' abilities to solve mathematical word problems. The Journal of Special Education, 17, 309–315.
29.
WoodwardJ.CarnineD.CollinsM. (1988). Closing the performance gap: CAI and secondary education for the mildly handicapped. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 265–286.
30.
WoodwardJ.CarnineD.GerstenR.GleasonM.JohnsonG.CollinsM. (1986). Applying instructional design principles to CAI for mildly handicapped students: Four recently conducted studies. Journal of Special Education Technology, 8, 13–26.
