The impact of computer-mediated technology on student preparation for inclusion was explored. Regular education students (36 males, 36 females) were assigned to one of three conditions: control, teacher instruction, and computer instruction. Following the respective treatments, two instruments, the Knowledge scale and the Social Distance Scale (Hazzard, Brightman, Baker, & Ambrose, 1981), were administered to assess any differences on knowledge of, and attitude towards children with mental retardation. Results indicated a significant interaction between condition and gender. Males in the computer instruction group out-performed males in the control and teacher instruction groups with respect to basic knowledge about children with special needs. There were no such differences for female students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallardM., CormanL., GottliebJ., & KaufmanM. (1977). Improving the social status of mainstreamed retarded children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 605–611.
2.
BalterA., & SmithS. (1981). Project CHANGE: Concepts of handicaps and attitudes need guidance and education. (ERIC Digest). Syracuse, N.Y: Eric Clearinghouse on Information Resources. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. 210 855).
3.
BeckerH.J. (1988). Higher computer access for high ability students. BYTE, 12, 149–162.
4.
BookbinderS. (1977). What every child needs to know. Exceptional Parent, 7, 31–35.
5.
BrightmanA. (1977). “But their little brain is broken: Young children's conceptions of retardation. In HarmonyM. (Ed.), Promise and performance: Children with special needs (pp. 240–252). Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger.
6.
CookJ., & WollersheimJ. (1976). The effect of labeling of special education students on the perceptions of contact versus noncontact normal peers. Journal of Special Education, 10, 187–198.
7.
EastmanS. T., & KrendlK. (1987). Computers and gender: Differential effects of electronic search on students' achievement and attitudes. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20, 41–47.
8.
EnglandE. (1985). Interactional analysis: The missing factor in computer-aided learning design and evaluation. Educational Technology, 25, 24–28.
9.
FieldsM.W. (1985). Exploratory data analysis in educational administration: Tempering methodological advances with a conservative note. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 21, 247–262.
10.
FriendM., & CookL. (1990). Collaboration as a predictor of success in school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1, 69–86.
11.
GoodmanH., GottliebJ., & HarrisonR. (1972). Social acceptance of EMRs integrated into a non-graded elementary school. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 76, 412–417.
12.
GottliebJ., CohenL., & GoldsteinL. (1974). Social contact and personal adjustment as variables relating to attitudes toward EMR children. Training School Bulletin, 71, 9–16.
13.
GottliebJ., & DavisJ. (1973). Social acceptance of EMR children during overt behavioral interactions. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 78, 141–143.
14.
GottliebJ., SemmelM., & VeldmanP. (1978). Correlates of social status among mainstreamed mentally retarded children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 396–405.
15.
HazzardA. (1983). Children's experience with, knowledge of, and attitude toward disabled persons. The Journal of Special Education, 17, 131–139.
16.
HazzardA., BrightmanR., BakerB., & AmbroseS. (1981). Enhancing typical children's acceptance of retarded peers through social contact and media (ERIC Digest). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 195 658).
17.
JanneyR., SnellM., BeersM., & RaynesM. (1995). Integrating students with moderate and severe disabilities into general education classes. Exceptional Children, 61, 425–439.
18.
LandowG. (1992). Hypertext: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, p. 3.
19.
LaszloA., & CastroK. (1995). Technology and values: Interactive environments for future generations. Educational Technology, 2, 7–12.
20.
MidlarskyE., & HannahM. (March, 1984). Coping by siblings of the handicapped: The role of altruistic helping. Paper Presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. (ERIC Digest). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 253 008).
21.
McGregorG., DrossnerD., & AxelrodS. (1990). Increasing instructional efficiency: A comparison of voice plus text vs. text alone on the error rate of students with mild disabilities during CAI. Journal of Special Education Technology, 10, 193–197.
22.
PeaR. D. (1991). Multimedia works: Student learning through multimedia tools. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 11, 58–66.
23.
PetersonG. (1974). Factors related to the attitudes of nonretarded children toward their EMR peers. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 79, 412–416.
24.
RobinsonM. (1979). Awareness program helps children understand special needs. Education Unlimited, 1, 25–27.
25.
SheareJ. (1974). Social acceptance of EMR adolescents in integrated programs. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 78, 678–682.
26.
ShinnM., RosenfieldS., & KnutsonN. (1989). Curriculum-based assessment: What you see is what you get. School Psychology Review, 18, 299–316.
TurnerS. V., & DipintoV. M. (1992). Students as hypermedia authors: Themes emerging from a qualitative study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25, 187–199.
