ABSTRACT: The authors used an alternating treatments design to compare the effects of a worksheet condition and an iPad condition on math fluency and active academic engagement during a high school math class in an alternative school setting. Following group instruction, the three participants engaged in independent seatwork either by completing problems on a worksheet or completing problems presented on an iPad. Based on visual analyses, students solved more math problems correctly in less time and demonstrated higher levels of active engagement in the iPad condition as compared to the worksheet condition. Social validity assessments indicated that the teacher and three students preferred the iPad condition to the worksheet condition during the math lessons. A discussion on study limitations, implications, and future research directions is included.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnnettaL. A., MinogueJ., HolmesS. Y., & ChengM. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics.Computers & Education53, 74–85.
2.
BashamJ. D., MeyerH., & PerryE. (2010). The design and application of the digital backpack.Journal of Research on Technology in Education42, 339–359.
3.
BillingsleyG., SheuermannB., & WebberJ. (2009). A comparision of three instructional methods for teaching math skills to secondary students with emotional/behavioral disorders.Behavioral Disorders35, 4–1.8.
4.
BlankenshipT. L., AyresK. M., & LangoneJ. (2005). Effects of computer-based cognitive mapping on reading comprehension for students with emotional behavior disorders.Journal of Special Education Technology20, 15–23.
5.
BloodE. (2010). Effects of student response systems on participation and learning of students with emotional and behavioral disorders.Behavioral Disorders35, 214–228.
6.
BottgeB. A., HeinrichsM., MehtaZ. D., & HungY. (2002). Weighing the benefits of anchored math instruction for students with disabilities in general education classes.The Journal of Special Education35, 186–200.
7.
CooperJ. O., HeronT. E., & HewardW. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd Ed.). New York: Macmillan.
DunleavyM., DedeC., & MitchellR. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning.Journal of Science Education and Technology18, 7–22.
10.
FitzpatrickM., & KnowltonE. (2009). Bringing evidence-based self-directed intervention practices to the trenches for students with emotional and behavioral disorders.Preventing School Failure53, 253–266.
11.
GageN. L., & NeedlesM. C. (1989). Process-product research on teaching: A review of criticisms.Elementary School Journal89, 253–300.
12.
GagnonJ. C., & MacciniP. (2001). Preparing students with disabilities for algebra: Kindergarten through secondary school.TEACHING Exceptional Children33(2), 8–15.
13.
GettingerM., & SeibertJ. K. (2002). Best practices in increasing academic learning time. In ThomasA., & GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV (pp. 773–787). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
14.
GreenwoodC. R. (1991). Longitudinal analysis of time, engagement, and achievement in at-risk versus non-risk students.Exceptional Children57, 521–535.
15.
HaydonT., ConroyM. A., SindelarP. T., ScottT. M., BarberB., & OriandoA. M. (2010). A comparison of three types of opportunities to respond on student academic and social behaviors.Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders18, 27–40.
16.
HodgeJ., RiccominiP. J., BufordR., & HerbstM. H. (2006). A review of instructional interventions in mathematics for students with emotional and behavioral disorders.Behavioral Disorders31, 297–311.
17.
LaneK. L., & MenziesH. M. (2010). Reading and writing interventions for students with and at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders: An introduction.Behavioral Disorders35, 82–85.
18.
LaneK. L., WehbyJ. H., LittleM. A., & CooleyC. (2005a). Academic, social, and behavioral profiles of students with emotional and behavioral disorders educated in self-contained classrooms and self-contained schools: Part I–Are they more alike than different?Behavior Disorders30, 349–361.
19.
LaneK. L., WehbyJ. H., LittleM. A., & CooleyC. (2005b). Students educated in self-contained classes and self-contained schools: Part II–How do they progress over time?Behavior Disorders30, 363–374.
20.
MagginD. M., WehbyJ. H., Moore-PartinT. C., RobertsonR., & OliverR. M. (2011). A comparison of instructional, curricular, and assessment differences of self-contained and general education placements for children with behavioral problems.Behavioral Disorders36, 191–211.
21.
MartensB. K., LochnerD. G., & KellyS. Q. (1992). The effects of variable interval reinforcement on academic engagement: A demonstration of matching theory.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis25, 143–151.
22.
MautoneJ. A., DuPaulG. J., & JitendraA. K. (2005). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on the mathematics performance and classroom behavior of children with ADHD.Journal of Attention Disorders9, 301–312.
23.
MeadowsN. B., NeelR. S., ScottC. M., & ParkerG. (1994). Academic performance, social competence, and mainstream accommodations: A look at mainstreamed and nonmainstreamed students with serious behavioral disorders.Behavioral Disorders19, 170–180.
24.
Moore PartinT. C., RobertsonR. E., MagginD. M., OliverR. M., & WehbyJ. H. (2010). Using teacher praise and opportunites to respond to promote appropriate student behavior.Preventing School Failure54, 172–178.
25.
NeefN. A., MaceF. C., & ShadeD. (1993). Impulsivity in students with serious emotional disturbance: The interactive effects of reinforcer rate, delay, and quality.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis26, 37–52.
26.
NeefN. A., ShadeD., & MillerM. S. (1994). Assessing influential dimensions of reinforcers on choice in students with serious emotional disturbance.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis27, 575–583.
27.
NewmanL., WagnerM., HuangT., ShaverD., KnokeyA.-M., YuJ., & … CametoR. (2011). Secondary School Programs and Performance of Students With Disabilities. A Special Topic Report of Findings From the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2012–3000). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, Retrieved from www.nlts2.org/reports/2011_11/nlts2_report_2011_11_complete.pdf
28.
O'NeillR. E., McDonnellJ. J., BillingsleyF. F., & JensonW. R. (2011). Single Case Research Designs in Educational and Community Settings.Boston, MA: Pearson.
29.
ReidR., GonzalezJ. E., NordnessP. D., TroutA., & EpsteinM. M. (2004). A meta-analysis of the academic status of students with emotional behavioral disturbance.The Journal of Special Education18, 130–143.
30.
RockM. L., & TheadB. K. (2009). Promote student success during independent seatwork.Intervention in School and Clinic44, 179–184.
31.
ScruggsT. E., MastropieriM. A., & CastoG. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation.Remedial and Special Education8, 24–33.
32.
SkinnerC. H. (2010). Applied comparative effectiveness researchers must measure learning rates: A commentary on efficiency articles.Psychology in the Schools47, 166–172.
33.
StichterJ. P., LewisT. J., WhittakerT. A., RichterM., JohnsonN. W., & TrussellR. P. (2009). Assessing teacher use of opportunities to respond and effective classroom management techniques: Comparisons among high- and low-risk elementary schools.Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions11, 68–81.
