This paper describes the use of "computer-supported studying" as an approach to helping students with disabilities develop and apply skills needed for successful transition from secondary to postsecondary education. The paper provides vignettes of three students with learning disabilities who participated in one of three federally funded projects designed to research the impact of computer-supported studying on student retention and academic achievement. Each vignette describes the way in which technology was used to minimize the negative impact of the student's disabilities and build upon the student's learning strengths. Results revealed that students who successfully adopted a computer-supported approach to studying also successfully adapted to the instructional demands of postsecondary education. Results are interpreted in terms of the literature on cognitive strategy instruction as well as the literature on social constructivism.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Council on Education. (1992). College freshmen with disabilities: A statistical profile. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, Heath Resource Center.
2.
Anderson-Inman, L. (1995). Computer-assisted outlining: Information organization made easy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39,4, 316-320.
3.
Anderson-Inman, L. (in press). Computer-based solutions for secondary students with learning disabilities; Emerging issues. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Difficulties.
4.
Anderson-Inman, L., Horney, M., Knox-Quinn, C., Ditson, M., Ditson, L. (1997). Computer-based study strategies: Empowering students with technology. Eugene, OR: Center for Electronic Studying, University of Oregon.
5.
Anderson-Inman, L., Knox-Quinn, C., Horney, M.A. (1996). Computer-based study strategies for students with learning disabilities: Individual differences associated with adoption level . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 461-484.
6.
Anderson-Inman, L., Redekopp, R., & Adams, V. (1992). Electronic studying: Using computer-based outlining programs as study tools. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 8, 337-358.
7.
Anderson-Inman, L., & Reinking, D. (1998). Learning from text in a post-typographic world . In C. Hynd, S. Stqahl, B. Britton, M. Carr, & S. Glynn (Eds.) Learning from text across conceptual domains . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum . 165-191.
8.
Anderson-Inman, L. & Tenny, J. (1989). Electronic studying: Information organizers to help students study "better" not "harder," Part I. The Computing Teacher, 16,8, 33-36.
9.
Anderson-Inman, L. & Zeitz, L. (May, 1994). Beyond notecards: Synthesizing information with electronic study tools. The Computing Teacher, 21-25.
10.
Bangert-Drowns, R.L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63,1, 69-93.
11.
Blackorby, J. & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study, Exceptional Children, 62, 399-413.
12.
Brinckerhoff, L.C., Shaw, S.F., & McQuire, J.M. (1993). Promoting postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities. Austin: Pro-Ed.
13.
Bryant, B., Rivera, D., & Warde, B. (1993). Technology as a means to an end: Facilitating success at the college level. LD Forum, 19, 13-18.
14.
Bursuck, W.D., Rose, E., Cowen, S., & Yahaya, M.A. (1989). Nationwide survey of postsecondary education services for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children , 56, 236-245.
15.
Cavalier, A.R., Ferretti, R.P., & Okolo, C.M. (1994). Technology and individual differences. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12, 175-181.
16.
Cowen, S. (1993). Transition planning for college-bound students with learning disabilities. In S. Vogel & P. B. Adelman (Eds.), Success for college students with learning disabilities (pp. 39-56). New York: Springer-Verlag.
17.
Dahlke, C. (1993). Making a successful transition from high school to college: A model program. In S. Vogel & P. B. Adelman (Eds.), Success for college students with learning disabilities (pp. 56-79). New York: Springer-Verlag.
18.
Elkind, J., Black, M.S., & Murray, C. (1996). Computer-based compensation of adult reading disabilities . Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 159-186.
19.
Flower, A. (1994). The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.
20.
Grabbe, M. (1988). Technological enhancement of study behavior: On-line activities to produce more effective learning. Collegiate Microcomputer, 6, 253-259.
21.
Graham, S. & Harris, K. (1989). A component analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353-361.
22.
Graham, S. & MacArthur, C. (1988). Improving learning disabled students' skills at revising essays produced on a word processor: Self-instructional strategy training. Journal of Special Education, 22,2, 133-152.
23.
Halpern, A. (1992). Transition: Old wine in new bottles. Exceptional Children, 58, 202-211.
24.
Halpern, A., Yovanoff, P., Doren, B., & Benz, M. (1995). Predicting participation in postsecondary education for school leavers with disabilities. Exceptional Children . 62, 151-162.
25.
Harris, K. & Graham, S. (1998). Constructivism and students with special needs: Issues in the classroom. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 134-137.
26.
Harris, K. & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of strategy instruction: Interactive strategy construction. Exceptional Children, 57, 393-404.
27.
Knox-Quinn, C. & Anderson-Inman, L. (1996). Project CONNECT: An interim report of the wirelessly networked notetaking support for students with disabilities . Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY
MacArthur, C.A., Schwartz, S.S., & Graham, S. (1991). A model for writing instruction: Integrating word processing and strategy instruction into a process approach to writing. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 239-236.
30.
McNaughton, D., Hughes, C., & Ofiesh, N. (1997). Proofreading for students with learning disabilities: Integrating computer and strategy use. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 16-28.
31.
Mellard, D. (1994). Services for students with learning disabilities in the community colleges. In P. J. Gerber & H. B. Reiff (Eds.), Learning disabilities in adulthood: Persisting problems and evolving issues (pp. 130-140). Stoneham, MA: Andover Medical.
32.
Mercer, C.D., Jordan, L., & Miller, S.P. (1998). Constructivist math instruction for diverse learners . Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 147-156.
33.
Newcomer, P.L. & Barenbaum, E.M. (1991). The written composing ability of children with learning disabilities: A review of the literature form 1980 to 1990. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 578-592.
34.
Pressley, M. & Woloshyn, V. (1995). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children's academic performance (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA; Brookline.
35.
Raskind, M.H. & Higgins, E.L. (1998). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 27-40.
36.
Reid, D.K. (1988). Teaching the learning disabled: A cognitive developmental approach. Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Resnick, D.P., & Resnick, L.B. (1989). Varieties of literacy. In A. B. Barnes & P. N. Stearns (Eds.), Social history and issues in human consciousness: Some interdisciplinary connections (pp. 171-196). New York: New York University Press.
39.
Reyes, E.I., Gallego, M.A., Duran, G.Z., & Scanlon, D.J. (1989). Integration of internal concepts and external factors: Extending the knowledge of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 112-124.
40.
Rusch, F.R., Chadsey-Rusch, J., & Szymanski, E. (1992). Transition from school to adult life: Models, linkages and policy. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
41.
Salomon, G. (1993). On the nature of pedagogic computer tools: The case for the writing partner. In S. P. Lajoie & S.J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 179-196). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
Saski, J., Swicegood, P., & Carter, J. (1983). Notetaking formats for learning disabled adolescents . Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 265-272.
43.
Shannon, T.R. & Polloway, E.A. (1993). Promoting error monitoring in middle school students with LD. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 160-164.
44.
Shaywitz, S.E. & Shaw, R. (1988). The admissions process: An approach to selecting learning disabled students at the most selective colleges. Learning Disabilities Focus, 3 (2), 81-86.
45.
Schumaker, J.B. & Deshler, D.D. (1995). Secondary classes can be inclusine, too. Educational Leadership, 52 (4), 50-51.
46.
Stoddard, B. & MacArthur, C. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning-disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 76-103.
47.
Trent, S.C., Artiles, A.J., & Englert, C.S. (1998). From deficit thinking to social constructivism: A review of theory, research, and practice in special education. In P. D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 277-307). Washington D. C.: American Educational Research Association .
48.
Vogel, S. (1993). The continuum of university responses to Section 504 for students with disabilities. In S. Vogel & P. B. Adelman (Eds.), Success for college students with learning disabilities (pp. 83-113). New York: Springer-Verlag.
49.
Vogel, S. & Adelman, P.B. (1993). Success for college students with learning disabilities . New York: Springer-Verlag.
50.
Vogel, S., Leonard, F., Scales, W., Hayeslip, P., Hermansen, J., & Donnells, L. (1998). The national learning disabilities postsecondary data bank: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 234-247.
51.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
52.
Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., Hebbeler, K. (1993). Beyond the report card: The multiple dimensions of secondary school performance of students with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International ( ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 365088).
53.
Wagner, M., D'Amico, R., Marder, C., Newman, L., & Blackerby, J. (1992). What happens next? Trends in postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: The second comprehensive report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 356 603).
54.
Woodward, J. & Reith, H. (1997). A historical review of technology research in special education. Review of Educational Research, 67, 503-536.
