Effectiveness of Cognitive Skills-Based Computer-Assisted Instruction for Students With Disabilities

Abstract

Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) for students with disabilities can be categorized into the following categories: visual, auditory, mobile, and cognitive skills-based CAI. Cognitive-skills based CAI differs from other types of CAI largely in terms of an emphasis on instructional design features. We conducted both systematic review of literatures and meta-analysis of studies using cognitive skills-based CAI to determine the effectiveness of this technology on the learning outcomes of students with disabilities. This study also scrutinized critical instructional design features of CAI used in the synthesized studies. Results indicated (a) a moderate weighted average effect size of 0.35 for group-comparison design studies; (b) relatively large effect sizes, but inconsistent among different indices, in single-subject experimental design studies; and (c) insufficient information available on design features of the CAI used in the primary studies. Limitations, implications, and future research directions were discussed.

Keywords

computer-assisted instruction technology meta-analysis research methodology learning outcomes

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

Calixto

Cook

Gan

L. S.

Ganton

Rees

. . . Watchorn

(2008). Assistive technologies for cognitive augmentation. In Cook

A. M.

Hussey

S. M.

(Eds.), Assistive technologies (3rd ed., pp. 337–369). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35, 33–40. doi:10.3102/0013189X035006033

Aslan

Reigeluth

C. M.

(2011). A trip to the past and future of educational computing: Understanding its evolution. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2, 1–17.

Ayres

K. M.

Maguire

McClimon

(2009). Acquisition and generalization of chained tasks taught with computer based video instruction to children with autism. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 493–508.

Ayres

K. M.

Mechling

Sansosti

F. J.

(2013). The use of mobile technologies to assist with life skills/independence of students with moderate/severe intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorders: Considerations for the future of school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 259–271. doi:10.1002/pits.21673

Azarmsa

(1991). Educational computing: Principles and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Benjamin

L. T.

(1988). A history of teaching machines. American Psychologist, 43, 703–712.

Beretvas

S. N.

Chung

(2008). A review of meta-analyses of single-subject experimental designs: Methodological issues and practice. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2, 129–141. doi:10.1080/17489530802446302

Bichelmeyer

Molenda

(2006). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Gradual growth atop tectonic shifts. In Orey

McClendon

V. J.

Branch

R. M.

(Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 31, pp. 3–32). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

10.

Blok

Oostdam

Otter

M. E.

Overmaat

(2002). Computer-assisted instruction in support of beginning reading instruction: A review. Review of Educational Research, 72, 101–130. doi:10.3102/00346543072001101

11.

*Bosseler

Massaro

D. W.

(2003). Development and evaluation of a computer-animated tutor for vocabulary and language learning for children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33, 653–672. doi:10.1023/B:JADD.0000006002.82367.4f

12.

Brock

P. A.

(1994). Educational technology in the classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

13.

Brown

Green

(2013). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Despite lean times, continued interest and opportunity in K-12, business, and higher education. In Orey

McClendon

V. J.

Branch

R. M.

(Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 37, pp. 55–71). New York, NY: Springer.

14.

Campbell

J. M.

(2004). Statistical comparison of four effect sizes for single-subject designs. Behavior Modification, 28, 234–246. doi:10.1177/0145445503259264

15.

Campbell

J. M.

Herzinger

C. V.

(2010). Statistics and single-subject research methodology. In Gast

D. L.

(Ed.), Single-subject research methodology in behavioral sciences (pp. 417–453). New York, NY: Routledge.

16.

*Campbell

M. L.

Mechling

L. C.

(2009). Small group computer assisted instruction with SMART Board technology: An investigation of observational and incidental learning of non-target information. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 47–57. doi:10.1177/0741932508315048

17.

Chiang

H. Y.

Jacobs

(2010). Perceptions of a computer-based instruction system in special education: High school teachers and students views. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 37, 349–359. doi:10.3233/WOR-2010-1089

18.

Christmann

Badgett

Lucking

(1997). Progressive comparison of the effects of computer-assisted instruction on the academic achievement of secondary students. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29, 325–337.

19.

Clark

R. E.

(1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 21–29.

20.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

21.

*Cohen

Hodson

O’Hare

Boyle

Durrani

McCartney

. . . Watson

(2005). Effects of computer-based intervention through acoustically modified speech (Fast ForWord) in severe mixed receptive-expressive language impairment: Outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 715–729. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2005/049)

22.

*Coleman-Martin

M. B.

Heller

K. W.

Cihak

Irvine

(2005). Using computer-assisted instruction and the nonverbal reading approach to teach word identification. Focus on Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 20, 80–90. doi:10.1177/10883576050200020401

23.

Cooper

(2009). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

24.

Cooper

Lowe

Taylor

(2008). Access to mathematics in web resources for people with a visual impairment. Computers Helping People with Special Needs, 5105, 926–933. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70540-6_139

25.

Cotton

(1991). Close-up #10: Computer-assisted instruction (The School Improvement Research Series, SIRS: 1987–1995). Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/532

26.

Deubel

(2003). An investigation of behaviorist and cognitive approaches to instructional multimedia design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12, 63–90.

27.

Douglas

K. H.

Wojcik

B. W.

Thompson

J. R.

(2012). Is there an app for that? Journal of Special Education Technology, 27, 59–70.

28.

Driscoll

M. P.

(2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Pearson.

29.

Dugan

J. J.

Cobb

R. B.

Alwell

(2007). The effects of technology-based interventions on academic outcomes for youth with disabilities. Ft. Collins: Colorado State University, School of Education.

30.

*Elkind

Cohen

Murray

(1993). Using computer-based readers to improve reading comprehension of students with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 238–259. doi:10.1007/BF02928184

31.

Gagné

R. M.

(1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

32.

Gagné

R. M.

Wager

Rojas

(1991). Planning and authoring computer-assisted instruction lessons. In Briggs

L. J.

Gustfson

K. L.

Tillman

(Eds.), Instructional design: Principle and applications (pp. 211–226). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

33.

Gast

D. L.

(2010). Applied research in education and behavioral sciences. In Gast

D. L.

(Ed.), Single-subject research methodology in behavioral sciences (pp. 1–19). New York, NY: Routledge.

34.

Hall

Higgins

(2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102–117. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00118.x

35.

*Hart

J. E.

Whalon

K. J.

(2012). Using video self-modeling via iPads to increase academic responding of an adolescent with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 438–446.

36.

Hattie

Timperley

(2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487

37.

Hedges

L. V.

Olkin

(1985). Statistical model of meta-analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.

38.

Herbert

(2010, November). The iPad breaking new ground in special education. District Administration, 46, 16.

39.

*Hetzroni

O. E.

Shalem

(2005). From logos to orthographic symbols: A multilevel fading computer program for teaching nonverbal children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 201–212. doi:10.1177/10883576050200040201

40.

Higgins

Thompson

S. G.

Deeks

J. J.

Altman

D. G.

(2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560.

41.

Higgins

Boone

(1996). Creating individualized computer-assisted instruction for students with autism using multimedia authoring software. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 11, 69–78. doi:10.1177/108835769601100202

42.

Higgins

Boone

Williams

(2000). Evaluating educational software for special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36, 109–115. doi:10.1177/105345120003600207

43.

*Irish

C. L.

(2002). Using peg- and keyword mnemonics and computer-assisted instruction to enhance basic multiplication performance in elementary students with learning and cognitive disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(4), 29–40.

44.

*Jimenez

J. E.

del Rosario Ortiz

Rodrigo

Hernandez-Valle

Ramirez

Estevez

. . . de

Luz Trabaue

(2003). Do the effects of computer-assisted practice differ for children with reading disabilities with and without IQ-achievement discrepancy? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 34–47. doi:10.1177/00222194030360010501

45.

*Jowett

E. L.

Moore

D. W.

Anderson

(2012). Using an iPad-based video modelling package to teach numeracy skills to a child with an autism spectrum disorder. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 15, 304–312. doi:10.3109/17518423.2012.682168

46.

Judge

S. L.

(2001). Computer applications in programs for young children with disabilities: Current status and future directions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16, 29–40.

47.

Judge

Puckett

Bell

S. M.

(2006). Closing the digital divide: Update from the early childhood longitudinal study. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 52–60. doi:10.3200/JOER.100.1.52-60

48.

*Kagohara

D. M.

Sigafoos

Achmadi

O’Reilly

M. F.

Lancioni

G. E.

(2012). Teaching children with autism spectrum disorders to check the spelling of words. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 304–310. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2011.05.012

49.

Kalyuga

Ayres

Sweller

(2009). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Routledge.

50.

*Keene

Davey

(1987). Effects of computer-presented text on LD adolescents’ reading behaviors. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 283–290.

51.

*Kim

A. H.

Woodruff

A. L.

Klein

Vaughn

(2006). Facilitating co-teaching for literacy in general education classrooms through technology: Focus on students with learning disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 269–291. doi:10.1080/10573560500455729

52.

Kratochwill

T. R.

Hitchcock

J. H.

Horner

R. H.

Levin

J. R.

Odom

S. L.

Rindskopf

D. M.

Shadish

W. R.

(2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 26–38. doi:10.1177/0741932512452794

53.

Kulik

C. L. C.

Kulik

J. A.

(1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An update analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–94.

54.

*Lally

(1981). Computer-assisted teaching of sight-word recognition for mentally retarded school children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85, 383–388.

55.

Lewis

Sullivan

S. M.

(2012). Diversity and accessibility. In Reiser

Dempsey

(Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 342–347). Boston, MA: Pearson.

56.

Lipsey

M. W.

Wilson

D. B.

(1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181–1209. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.12.1181

57.

Littell

J. H.

Corcoran

Pillai

(2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

58.

Maggin

D. M.

Briesch

A. M.

Chafouleas

S. M.

(2013). An application of the What Works Clearinghouse standards for evaluating single-subject research: Synthesis of the self-management literature-base. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 44–58.

59.

Maggin

D. M.

O’Keeffe

B. V.

Johnson

A. H.

(2011). A quantitative synthesis of single-subject meta-analyses in special education, 1985–2009. Exceptionality, 19, 109–135. doi:10.1080/09362835.2011.565725

60.

Mayer

R. E.

(2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139.

61.

Mayer

R. E.

(2011). Chapter three—Applying the science of learning to multimedia instruction. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 77–108.

62.

Mayer

R. E.

Moreno

(2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.

63.

Minocha

(2009). An empirically-grounded study on the effective use of social software in education. Education & Training, 51, 381–394.

64.

Morel

Ach

(2011). Attention-aware intelligent embodied agents. In Roda

(Ed.), Human attention in digital environments (pp. 147–165). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

65.

National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2012). Learning disability fast facts. Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org/types-learning-disabilities/what-is-ld/learning-disability-fast-facts

66.

Newby

T. J.

Stepich

D. A.

Lehman

J. D.

Russell

J. D.

Ottenbriet-Leftwich

(2010). Educational technology for teaching and learning (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

67.

Newton

D. N.

Dell

(2011). Mobile devices and students with disabilities: What do best practices tell us? Journal of Special Education Technology, 26, 47–49.

68.

Okey

J. R.

(1991). Procedures of lesson design. In Briggs

L. J.

Gustafson

K. L.

Tillman

M. H.

(Eds.), Instructional design: Principle and applications (pp.193–210). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

69.

Olive

M. L.

Smith

B. W.

(2005). Effect size calculations and single-subject designs. Educational Psychology, 25, 313–324. doi:10.1080/0144341042000301238

70.

Oud

(2009). Guidelines for effective online instruction using multimedia screencasts. Reference Services Review, 37, 164–177. doi:10.1108/00907320910957206

71.

Pennington

(2010). Computer-assisted instruction for teaching academic skills to students with autism spectrum disorders: A review of literature. Focus on Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 25, 239–248. doi:10.1177/1088357610378291

72.

*Pennington

Ault

Schuster

(2011). Using simultaneous prompting and computer-assisted instruction to teach story writing to students with autism. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 7, 24–38. doi:10.1353/etc.2012.0022

73.

Pridemore

D. R.

Klein

J. D.

(1991). Control of feedback in computer-assisted instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(4), 27–32. doi:10.1007/BF02296569

74.

Reece

G. J.

(2005). Critical thinking and cognitive transfer: Implications for the development of online information literacy tutorial. Research Strategies, 20, 482–493. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resstr.2006.12.018

75.

Schmidt

Weinstein

Niemiec

Walberg

(1985–1986). Computer-based instruction and exceptional children: A meta-analysis of research findings. Journal of Special Education, 19, 493–502.

76.

Seo

Woo

(2010). The identification, implementation, and evaluation of critical user interface design features of computer-assisted instruction programs in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Computers & Education, 55, 363–377. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.002

77.

Shadish

W. R.

Rindskopf

D. M.

Hedges

L. V.

(2008). The state of the science in the meta-analysis of single-case experimental designs. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2, 188–196. doi:10.1080/17489530802581603

78.

Shah

(2011). Special education pupils find learning tool in iPad applications. Education Week, 30, 1–16.

79.

*Simpson

Langone

Ayres

K. M.

(2004). Embedded video and computer based instruction to improve social skills for students with autism. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 240–252.

80.

Skinner

B. F.

(1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128, 969–977.

81.

Skinner

B. F.

(1968). The technology of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

82.

Soe

Koki

Chang

J. M.

(2000). Effect of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) on reading achievement: A meta-analysis. Washington, DC: OERI.

83.

Steele

Minshew

Luna

Sweeney

J. A.

(2007). Spatial working memory deficits in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 605–612.

84.

*Stultz

S. L.

(2008). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction for teaching mathematics to students with specific learning disability (Doctoral dissertation). Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.

85.

Swanson

H. L.

Deshler

(2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 124–135. doi:10.1177/002221940303600205

86.

Swanson

H. L.

Hoskyn

Lee

(1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

87.

Swanson

H. L.

Siegel

(2001). Learning disabilities as a working memory deficit. Issues in Education: Contributions From Educational Psychology, 7, 1–48.

88.

Sweller

(1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.

89.

Sweller

Ayres

Kalyuga

(2011). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Springer.

90.

Tanis

E. S.

Palmer

Wehmeyer

Davies

D. K.

Stock

S. E.

Lobb

Bishop

(2012). Self-report computer-based survey of technology use by people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 53–68. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.53

91.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

C. H.

Richter

S. M.

White

Mazzotti

Walker

A. R.

. . . Kortering

(2009). Evidence-based practices in secondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 115–128. doi:10.1177/0885728809336859

92.

Valdez

McNabb

Foertsch

Anderson

Hawkes

Raack

(1999). Computer-based technology and learning: Evolving uses and expectations. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

93.

Wells

Lewis

(2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2005 (NCES 2007–020). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED494307.pdf

94.

*Whalen

Liden

Ingersoll

Dallaire

Liden

(2006). Behavioral improvements associated with computer-assisted instruction for children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Speech and Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 11–26.

95.

Williams

Boone

Kingsley

(2004). Teacher beliefs about educational software: A Delphi study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 213–229.

96.

Wilson

D. B.

(2009). Systematic coding. In Cooper

Hedges

L. V.

Valentine

J. C.

(Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 159–176). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

97.

*Woodward

Carnine

Gersten

(1988). Teaching problem solving through computer simulation. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 72–86. doi:10.3102/00028312025001072

98.

Woodward

Rieth

(1997). A historical review of technology research in special education. Review of Educational Research, 67, 503–536.

99.

Xin

Y. P.

Jitendra

A. K.

(1999). The effects of instruction in solving mathematical word problems for students with learning problems: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 207–225. doi:10.1177/002246699903200402

100.

*Yakubova

Taber-Doughty

(2013). Effects of video modeling and verbal prompting on social skills embedded within a purchasing activity for students with autism. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28, 35–48.

101.

*Yaw

J. S.

Skinner

C. H.

Parkhurst

Taylor

C. M.

Booher

Chambers

(2011). Extending research on a computer-based sight-word reading intervention to a student with autism. Journal of Behavior Education, 20, 44–54. doi:10.1007/s10864-010-9118-1