Training in Task-Related Behaviors and its Relationship to Microcomputer Mathematics Performance

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare mathematics problem-solving performance of students trained in task-related behaviors with a control group of untrained students. Forty learning disabled and forty nonhandicapped upper elementary students were assigned to dyads such that each student worked with both a handicapped and a nonhandicapped partner. Dyads were then randomly assigned to either a trained or control group. Trained dyads received instruction in giving explanations and asking questions. All dyads worked for twelve ten-minute sessions at a microcomputer solving a mathematics task. Following each computer session, students individually solved a paper/pencil task with problems similar to the computer problems. Results indicated that the trained group exhibited significantly more task-related behaviors including: 1) asking how to solve a problem, 2) asking for an answer check, 3) giving an explanation, 4) giving feedback, and 5) asking if the partner needed help. However, there were no performance differences between the trained and untrained groups on the paper/pencil tasks. A further analysis, in which trained and control groups were combined, showed a significant relationship between giving a correct explanation and paper/pencil scores for both handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Additionally, handicapped students who asked their partner if they needed help also performed better on the paper/pencil task.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ballard

Corman

Gottlieb

Kaufman

M. J.

, Improving the Social Status of Mainstreamed Retarded Children, Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, pp. 605–611, 1977.

Chennault

, Improving the Social Acceptance of Unpopular Educable Mentally Retarded Pupils in Special Classes, American Journal of Mental Deficiencies, 72, pp. 455–458, 1967.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

Maruyama

, Interdependence and Interpersonal Attraction among Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Individuals: A Theoretical Formulation and a Meta-analysis of the Research, Review of Educational Research, 53, pp. 5–54, 1983.

Slavin

R. E.

, Cooperative Learning, Longman, New York, 1983.

Slavin

R. E.

Stevens

R. J.

Madden

N. A.

, Accommodating Student Diversity in Reading and Writing Instruction: A Cooperative Learning Approach, Remedial and Special Education, 9, pp. 60–66, 1988.

Webb

N. M.

, Student Interaction and Learning in Small Groups, Review of Educational Research, 52, pp. 421–445, 1982.

Webb

N. M.

, A Process-Outcome Analysis of Learning in Group and Individual Settings, Educational Psychologist, 15:2, pp. 69–83, 1980.

Peterson

P. L.

Janicki

T. C.

, Individual Characteristics and Children's Learning in Large-Group and Small-Group Approaches, Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, pp. 677–687, 1979.

Peterson

P. L.

Janicki

T. C.

Swing

S. R.

, Ability × Treatment Interaction Effects on Children's Learning in Large-Group and Small-Group Approaches, American Educational Research Journal, 18, pp. 453–473, 1981.

10.

Peterson

P. L.

Wilkinson

L. C.

Spinelli

Swing

S. R.

, Merging the Process-Product and the Sociolinguistic Paradigms: Research on Small-Group Processes, in The Social Context of Instruction, Peterson

P. L.

Wilkinson

L. C.

Hallinan

(eds.), Academic Press, Orlando, Florida, pp. 125–152, 1984.

11.

Bryan

Cosden

Pearl

, The Effects of Cooperative Goal Structures and Cooperative Models on LD and NLD Students, Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, pp. 415–421, 1982.

12.

Cosden

M. A.

Pearl

Bryan

T. H.

, The Effects of Cooperative and Individual Goal Structures on Learning Disabled and Nondisabled Students, Exceptional Children, 52:2, pp. 103–114, 1985.

13.

Cosden

M. A.

Gerber

M. M.

Semmel

D. S.

Goldman

S. R.

Semmel

M. I.

, Microcomputer Use within Micro-Educational Environments, Exceptional Children, 53, pp. 399–409, 1987.

14.

Littlejohn

T. D.

Ross

R. P.

Gump

P. V.

, Using Computers in Elementary Schools: Implementation Issues, paper presented to the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, April, 1984.

15.

Lieber

Semmel

M. I.

, The Relationship between Group Size and Performance on a Microcomputer Problem-Solving Task for Learning Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Students, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, pp. 171–187, 1987.

16.

Webb

N. M.

, Microcomputer Learning in Small Groups: Cognitive Requirements and Group Processes, Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, pp. 1076–1088, 1984.

17.

Webb

N. M.

Ender

Lewis

, Problem Solving Strategies and Group Processes in Small Groups Learning Computer Programming, American Educational Research Journal, 23, pp. 243–261, 1986.

18.

Becker

H. J.

, The Impact of Computer Use on Children's Learning: What Research has Shown and what It has Not, paper presented to the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., April, 1987.

19.

Cosden

M. A.

, Microcomputer Instruction and Perceptions of Effectiveness by Special and Regular Education Elementary School Teachers, The Journal of Special Education, 22, pp. 242–253, 1988.

20.

Lieber

Semmel

M. I.

, The Relationship of Group Configuration to Educational Outcomes Using Microcomputers, paper presented to the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, April, 1988.

21.

O'Brien

T. C.

, Teasers by Tobbs: Puzzles and Problem Solving [Computer program and computer program manual], Sunburst Communications, Inc., Pleasantville, New York, 1984.

22.

Lieber

Semmel

M. I.

, The Relationship between Task-Related Interactions and Performance for Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Learners Using Microcomputers, (Technical Report), Special Education Program, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1986.

23.

Swing

S. R.

Peterson

P. L.

, The Relationship of Student Ability and Small-Group Interaction to Student Achievement, American Educational Research Journal, 19, pp. 259–274, 1982.