Innovations in special education technology throughout the 1980s have been most pronounced in the area of mathematics. Largely because of federal funding, development and research has been conducted with a wide variety of new technologies, particularly in the areas of assessment and effective instructional programs. A pervasive theme throughout these efforts has been the use of an information processing framework for understanding the problems special education students exhibit as they learn mathematics. Automaticity, conceptual development, and cognitive modeling have been key areas of research. The authors look forward to the next decade with the hope that these technologies will be used increasingly by practitioners.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshlockR. (1986). Error patterns in computation. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
2.
BeckerH. (1987). Using computers for instruction. Byte, 12 (2), 149–162.
3.
BeckerH.SterlingC. (1987). Equity in school computer use: National data and neglected considerations. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3 (3), 289–311.
4.
BrownJ.BurtonR. (1978). Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematic skills. Cognitive Science, 2, 155–168.
5.
BrownA.CampioneJ. (1986). Psychological theory and the study of learning disabilities. American Psychologist, 14 (10), 1059–1068.
6.
BrownJ.S.VanLehnK. (1982). Towards a generative theory of “bugs.” In CarpenterT.P.MoserJ.M.RombergT.A. (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7.
BurtonR. (1981). DEBUGGY: Diagnosis of errors in basic mathematical skills. In SleemanD.H.BrownJ.S. (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems. London: Academic Press.
8.
CarnineD. (1989). Teaching complex content to learning disabled students: The role of technology. Exceptional Children, 55 (6), 524–533.
9.
CarnineD. (1991). Curricular interventions for teaching higher order thinking to all students: Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24 (5), 261–269.
10.
CawleyJ. (1985). Cognition and learning disabilities. In CawleyJ.F. Ed.), Cognitive strategies and mathematics for the learning disabled (pp. 1–32).
11.
CosdenM.GerberM.SemmelD.GoldmanS.SemmelM. (1987). Microcomputer use within micro-educational environments. Exceptional Children, 53 (5), 399–409.
12.
CoxL. S. (1975). Diagnosing and remediating systematic errors in addition and subtraction computations. The Arithmetic Teacher, 22, 151–57.
13.
EngelhardtJ. M. (1977). Analysis of children's computational errors: A qualitative approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 149–54.
14.
EngelmannS.CarnineD. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington.
15.
FerraraR.A. (1987). Learning mathematics in the zone of proximal development: The importance of flexible use of knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
16.
FeursteinR. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
17.
FuchsL.FuchsD.HamlettC.SteckerP. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Educational Research Journal28 (3), 617–641.
GinsburgH.P. (1987). Assessing arithmetic. In HammillD. (Ed.), Assessing the abilities and instructional needs of students. Austin, TX: ProEd.
20.
GoldmanS.PellegrinoJ. (1987). Information processing and educational microcomputer technology: Where do we go from here?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20 (3), 144–154.
21.
GoldmanS.PellegrinoJ.MertzD. (1988). Extended practice of basic addition facts: Strategy changes in learning disabled students. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 223–265.
22.
HasselbringT.BottgeB.GoinL. (1992, April). Linking procedural knowledge to improve mathematical problem-solving in at-risk students. Paper presented at the 70th Council for Exceptional Children Annual Convention, Baltimore: MD.
23.
HasselbringT.GoinL. I. (1986). CAMS: Chronometric analysis of math strategies [Computer program]. Nashville: Expert Systems Software.
24.
HasselbringT.GoinL.BransfordJ. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20 (6), 1–7.
25.
HasselbringT.SherwoodR.BransfordJ.FleenorK.GriffithL.GoinL. (1987–88). Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 16 (2), 151–169.
26.
Hayes-RothF.WatermanD.LenatD. (1983). Building expert systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
27.
HofmeisterA. M.FerraraJ. M. (1986). Expert systems and special education. Exceptional Children, 53 (3), 235–239.
28.
HowardL.WoodwardJ. (1990). Misconceptions in subtraction and addition: An analysis of middle school students with learning disabilities. (Tech. Rep. No. 90–1). Eugene, Oregon: Eugene Research Institute.
29.
HowardL.WoodwardJ. P. (1991). TORUS: Advancements in curriculum based assessment—preliminary findings. (Tech. Rep. No. 91–3). Eugene, Oregon: Eugene Research Institute.
30.
KellyB.GerstenR.CarnineD. (1990). Student error patterns as 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.
31.
KitzW.ThorpeH. (1992). The effecitveness of videodisc and traditional algebra Instruction with college-aged remedial students. Unpublished manuscript.
32.
LandesM. (1991). A comparison of TORUS and human expert diagnoses: A construct validity study. Unpublished masters thesis. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon.
33.
MillerS.CookeN. (1989). Mainstreaming students with learning disabilities for videodisc math instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 21 (3), 57–62.
34.
MooreL.J.CarnineD.W. (1989). A comparison of two approaches to teaching ratios and proportions to remedial and Learning disabled students: Active teaching with either basal or empirically validated curriculum design material. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 28–37.
35.
PalincsarA. S. (1986) The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21 (142), 73–98.
36.
ParryJ. D.HofmeisterA. M. (1986). Development and validation of an expert system for special educators. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9 (2), 124–132.
37.
PetersonL.HofmeisterA.LubkeM. (1988). A videodisc approach to instructional productivity. Educational Technology, 28 (2), 16–22.
38.
SemmelM.GerberM.SemmelD. (1992, March). Computer-based modeling of dynamic assessment of mildly handicapped pupils' multiplication performance. Paper presented at the International Conference on Technology in Education, Paris, France.
39.
SemmelM.LieberJ. (1986). Computer applications in instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 18 (9), 1–12.
40.
Systems Impact, Inc. (1985). Mastering fractions. [videodisc program]. Washington, D.C.: Systems Impact, Inc.
41.
Systems Impact, Inc. (1987). Mastering ratios. [videodisc program]. Washington, D.C.: Systems Impact, Inc.
42.
Systems Impact, Inc. (1991). Mastering equations, roots, and exponents, [videodisc program]. Washington, D.C.: Systems Impact, Inc.
43.
RiethH.BahrC.OkoloC.PolsgroveL.EckertR. (1988). An analysis of the impact of microcomputers on the secondary special education classroom ecology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4 (4), 425–441.
44.
VanLehnK. (1983). Bugs are not enough: Empirical studies of bugs, impasses and repairs in procedural skills. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 3 (2), 3–72.
45.
VanLehnK. (1988). Toward a theory of impasse-driven learning. In MandlH.LesgoldA. (Eds.), Learning Issues for intelligent tutoring systems. New York: Springer-Verlag.
46.
VanLehnK. (1990). Mind bugs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
WengerE. (1987). Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems. New York: Morgan Kaufmann.
49.
WoodwardJ. (1991). Procedural knowledge in mathematics: The role of curriculum. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 24 (4), 242–251.
50.
WoodwardJ.FreemanS.Howard (1992). TORUS: Computer-based analysis of subtraction, [computer program]. Eugene, Oregon: Eugene Research Institute.
51.
WoodwardJ.GerstenR. (1992). Innovative technology for secondary learning disabled students: A multi-faceted study of implementation. Exceptional Children, 58 (5), 407–422.
52.
WoodwardJ.NoellJ. (in press). Software development in special education. Journal of Special Education Technology.
53.
YoungR.M.O'SheaT. (1981). Errors in children's subtraction. Cognitive Science, 5, 152–177.
