Despite a decade of research on students at risk offailure, some educators have not altered their classrooms and teaching practice and so continue to encounter difficulties in teaching those students most at risk offailure. This case study of at-risk students in grade 8 examined perceptions about learning in a nonstandard classroom. A "technology lab" was designed around three research-based approaches to the educational environment: cooperative group work, authentic tasks and assessments, and appropriate use of technology. Researchers gathered input about the learning experiences provided by this facility. Responses show that students feel more motivated to learn, receive better grades, and accept more responsibility for their work in the lab environment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brooks,J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The casefor constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
2.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
3.
Cardon, P. L. (2000). At-risk students and technology education: A qualitative study. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(1), 49-57.
4.
Chavez, R. C. (1990). The development of story writing within an IBM Writing to Read Program lab among language minority students: Preliminary findings of a naturalistic study. Computers in the Schools, 7(1/2), 121-144.
5.
DiCintio, M. J., & Gee, S. (1999). Control is the key: Unlocking the motivation of at-risk students. Psychology in the Schools, 36(3), 231-237.
6.
Dunkel, P. (1990). Implications of the CAI effectiveness research for limited English proficient learners. Computers in the Schools, 7(1/2), 23-26.
7.
Elmore, R. F. (1990). Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
Hixson, J., & Tinzmann, M. (1990). Who are "at-risk" students of the 1990s? Retrieved June 6, 2002, from North Central Regional Educational Laboratory website: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/rpl-esys/equity.htm
9.
Johnson, D. W., &Johnson, R. T. (1989). Leading the cooperative school. Edina, MN: Interaction.
10.
Letgers, N., McDill, E., & McPartland,J. (1993). Section II: Rising to the challenge: Emerging strategies for educating students at-risk. In Educational reforms and students at-risk: A review of the current state of the art (pp. 47-92). Retrieved June 6, 2002, from U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement website http://www.ed.gov./pubs/EdReformStudies/EdReforms/chap6a.html
11.
Marshall, H. H. (1992). Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
12.
Means, B. (1997). Critical issue: Using technology to enhance engaged learningfor at-risk students. Retrieved June 6, 2002, from North Central Regional Educational Laboratory website: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at400.htm
13.
Means, B., Blando,J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C., Remz, A., & Zorfass, J. (1993). Using technology to support education reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
14.
Means, B., Chelever, C., & Knapp, M. (Ed.). (1991). Teaching advanced skills to at-risk students: Views from research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15.
Means, B., & Knapp, M. S. (1991). Cognitive approaches to teaching advanced skills to economically disadvantaged students. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 282-289.
16.
Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995, April). Technology's role within constructivist classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 383283).
17.
Merino, B.J., Legarreta, D., Coughran, C. C., & Hoskins,J. (1990). Interaction at the computer by language minority boys and girls paired with fluent English proficient peers. Computers in Schools, 7(1/2), 109-119.
18.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104(8), 280-312.
21.
Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8-12.
22.
Ogle, D. (1997). Critical issue: Rethinking learningfor students at-risk. Retrieved June 6, 2002, from North Central Regional Educational Laboratory website: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at700.htm
23.
Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
24.
Roschelle,J. M., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C. M., Gordin, D. N., & Means, B. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. Future of Children, 10(2), 76-101.
25.
Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace's school: Redesigning the American high school. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
26.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71-82.
27.
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1989). What works for students at risk: A research synthesis. Educational Leadership, 46(5), 4-13.
28.
Synergistic Systems (2002). Overview: Foundations. Retrieved on June 7, 2002, from http://www.synergistic-systems.com/foundations.html
29.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
30.
Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
