This article summarizes and critiques research on the effectiveness of computer applications with at-risk students. Though the research claims many positive outcomes (unproved achievement, lower absenteeism, higher self-esteem, better attitude toward school) resulting from computer use with these students, this review concludes that many of the findings are questionable as a result of several issues. These include flaws in study design, measurement problems, failure to control critical factors associated with the learning environment, lack of specificity regarding utilization and implementation, and a general disregard for the influence of gender and SES in examining and assessing results.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CampbellD. T. and StanleyJ. C., Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1963.
2.
EdeburnC. E. and JacobiC., Reading, Computer Assisted Instruction, and Native American Students (Report No. RC 015 655), paper presented at the Annual Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association Meeting, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 270 238), 1985.
3.
JacobiC. A., Project DISC: Developing Indian Software Curriculum (Report No. IR 012 054), Rapid City Area School District 51-4, South Dakota, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 268 987), 1985.
4.
MehanH., Computers in Classrooms: A Quasi-Experiment in Guided Change: Final Report (Report No. NIE 6-83-0027), National Institute of Education, Washington, D.C., (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ER 292 460), 1985.
5.
RossS. M.SmithL.MorrisonG. R.EricsonA., and KitabchiG., The Apple Classroom of Tomorrow Program with At-Risk Students, paper presented at the 1989 11th Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, Texas, 1989.
6.
ElyM., An Evaluation of the PAL/Consortium Computer Center Summer Computer Camp Equity Project: Technical Report No. 2 (Report No. PS 015 010), New York University, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 255 303), 1984.
7.
DavidJ. L., Annual Report, 1986: Southern Coalition for Educational Equity (Report No. UD 025 617), Southern Coalition for Educational Equity, Jackson, Mississippi, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 283 924), 1987.
8.
PayneD. A., Evaluation Realities or How I Learned to Love “The Standards” While Evaluating a Computer Assisted Instruction Project (Report No. TM 870 303), paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Kansas City, Missouri, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 281 887), 1986.
9.
DiessnerR.RousculpE. E., and WalkerJ. L., English Fluency via Computers at Yakima Tribal School, Journal of American Indian Education, 25: 1, pp. 17–24, 1985.
10.
SchrammW., Big Media, Little Media, Sage, Beverly Hills, California, 1977.
11.
Trends and Status of Computers in Schools: Use in Chapter Programs and Use with Limited English Proficient Students-Staff Paper (Report No. IR 013 000), Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C., (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 291 337), 1987.
12.
EdeburnC. E., The Relationship between Individual Software Packages and Reading Improvement in an Experimental CAI Program (Report No. RC 015 654), paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 270 237), 1985.
13.
NgaiyayeM. S. W. and VanderPlogeA., Differential Effectiveness of Three Kinds of Computer-Assisted Instruction (Report No. IR 012 384), paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 277 335)N, 1986.
14.
SlavinR. E., Making Chapter I Make a Difference, Phi Delta Kappan, 69: 2, pp. 110–119, 1987.
15.
AscherC., Microcomputers: Equity and Quality in Education for Urban Disadvantaged Students (Report No. UD 022 937), ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, New York, (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 242 801), 1984.
16.
McPhailI. P., Computer Inequities in School Uses of Microcomputers: Policy Implications, Journal of Negro Education, 54: 1, pp. 3–13, 1985.
17.
MiuraI. T., Gender and Socioeconomic Status Differences in Middle-School Computer Interest and Use, Journal of Early Adolescence, 7: 2, pp. 243–254, 1987.
18.
KrendlK. A.BroiherM. C., and FleetwoodC., Children and Computers: Do Sex-Related Differences Persist?, Journal of Communication, 39: 3, pp. 85–93, 1989.
