In this literature review, the effects of computer-mediated instruction on the learning of students with mild and moderate disabilities are synthesized from 1996 onward that extends our previously published synthesis for the period 1987–1995. Empirically based findings are reviewed and discussed in the basic skills areas of reading, writing, and mathematics, as well as in the content areas of social studies and science. Results are interpreted and discussed regarding traditional teaching methodologies in special education as well as changes in the instructional ecology and expectations for students created by the inclusion movement and reforms in general education. Limitations found in the reviewed studies are described and future directions for research in special education technology for students with high incidence disabilities are identified.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson-InmanL.Knox-QuinnC., & HorneyM. (1996). Computer-based study strategies for students with learning disabilities: Individual differences associated with adoption level. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 461–484.
2.
BahrC. M.NelsonN. W., & Van MeterA. (1996). The effects of text-based and graphics-based software tools on planning and organizing of stories. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 355–382.
3.
BahrC. M.NelsonN. W.Van MeterA., & YannaJ. V. (1996). Children's use of desktop publishing features: Process and product. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7, 149–177.
4.
BlankenshipT. L.AyersK. M., & LangoneJ. (2005). Effects of computer-based cognitive mapping on reading comprehension for students with emotional behavior disorders. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(2), 15–23.
5.
BottgeB. A.HeinrichsM.ChanS.MehtaZ., & WatsonE. (2003). Effects of video-based and applied problems on the procedural math skills of average- and low-achieving adolescents. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(2), 5–22.
6.
BottgeB. A.HeinrichsM.ChanS., & SerlinR. (2001). Anchoring adolescents' understanding of math concepts in rich problem-solving environments. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 299–314.
7.
BrantlingerE.JimenezR.KlingnerJ.PugachM., & RichardsonV. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–178.
8.
BrooksD., & ZhangY. (1992). ROBO-Writer [computer software]. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.
9.
BrownA. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.
10.
BurgstahlerS. (2003). The role of technology in preparing youth with disabilities for postsecondary education and employment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(4), 7–19.
11.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2005). Special Issue: Criteria for evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71.
12.
CalhoonM.FuchsL., & HamlettC. (2000). Effects of computer-based test accommodations on mathematics performance assessments for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 271–282.
13.
EdyburnD. (1991). Fact retrieval by students with and without learning handicaps using print and electronic encyclopedias. Journal of Special Education Technology, 11(2), 75–90.
14.
EdyburnD. L. (2001). 2000 in review: A synthesis of the special education technology literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(2), 5–25.
15.
EdyburnD. L. (2002). 2001 in review: A synthesis of the special education technology literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(2), 5–24.
16.
EdyburnD. L. (2003). 2002 in review: A synthesis of the special education technology literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(3), 5–28.
17.
EdyburnD. L. (2004). 2003 in review: A synthesis of the special education technology literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(4), 57–80.
18.
EdyburnD. L.HigginsK., & BooneR. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of special education technology research and practice.Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
19.
EnglertC.ManaloM., & ZhaoY. (2004). I can do it better: The effects of technology-enabled scaffolding on young writers' composition. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(1), 5–22.
20.
FerrettiR. P.MacArthurC. D., & OkoloC. M. (2001) Teaching for historical understanding in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 24, 59–71.
21.
FitzgeraldG., & KouryK. (1996). Empirical advances in technology-assisted instruction for students with mild and moderate disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 526–553.
22.
GerstenR. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with learning disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities Practice, 13, 162–170.
23.
GlaserC. W.RiethH. J.KinzerC. K.ColburnL. K., & PeterJ. (2000). A description of the impact of multimedia anchored instruction on classroom interactions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 14(2), 27–43.
24.
HallT. E.HughesC. A., & FilbertM. (2000). Computer-assisted instruction in reading for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 173–193.
25.
HartleyK. (2001). Learning strategies and hypermedia instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10, 285–305.
26.
HattieJ.BiggsJ., & PurdieN. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99–136.
27.
HasselbringT. S. (2001). A possible future of special education technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(4), 15–21.
28.
HasselbringT. S., & MooreP. R. (1996). Developing mathematical literacy through the use of contextualized learning environments. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7, 199–222.
29.
HigginsK.BooneR., & LovittT. C. (1996). Hypertext support for remedial students and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities29, 402–412.
30.
HigginsE. L., & RaskindM. H. (2005). The compensatory effectiveness of the Quicktionary Reading Pen II on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(1), 31–39.
31.
HowellR. D.EricksonK.StangerC., & WheatonJ. E. (2000). Evaluation of a computer-based program on the reading performance of first grade students with potential for reading failure. Journal of Special Education Technology15(4), 5–14.
32.
Inspiration [computer software]. (2000). Portland, OR: Inspiration Software, Inc.
33.
IntelliTools. (2000). IntelliTools Reading [Computer software]. Petoluma, CA.
34.
IrishC. (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.
35.
JeromeA., & BarbettaP. (2005). The effect of active student responding during computer-assisted instruction on social studies learning by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(3), 13–23.
36.
JitendraA., & XinY. P. (1997). Mathematical word-problem-solving instruction for students with mild disabilities and students at risk for math failure: A research synthesis. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 412–438.
37.
KouryK. (1996). The impact of preteaching science content vocabulary using integrated media for knowledge acquisition in a collaborative classroom. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7, 179–197.
38.
LancasterP.SchumakerJ., & DeshlerD. (2002). The development and validation of an interactive hypermedia program for teaching a self-advocacy strategy to students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 277–302.
39.
LangoneJ.LevineB.CleesT. J.MaloneM., & KoorlandM. (1996). The differential effects of a typing tutor and microcomputer-based word processing on the writing samples of elementary students with behavior disorders. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29, 141–158.
40.
LeeY., & VailC. O. (2005). Computer-based reading instruction for young children with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology20(1), 5–18.
41.
LernerJ. W. (2000). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
42.
LevinD., & DardenC. (1999). Forum on technology in education: Envisioning the future. Proceedings of a Working Meeting Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
43.
LewisR. B.AshtonT. M.HaopaB.KieleyC. L., & FieldenC. (1999). Improving the writing skills of students with learning disabilities: Are word processors with spelling and grammar checkers useful?Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(3), 87–98.
44.
MacArthurC. A. (1998). Word processing with speech synthesis and word prediction: Effects on the dialogue journal writing of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 152–166.
45.
MacArthurC. A. (1999). Word prediction for students with severe spelling problems. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 158–172.
46.
MacArthurC. A.FerrettiR. P.OkoloC. M., & CavalierA. R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 273–301.
47.
MacArthurC. A.GrahamS.HaynesJ. B., & DeLaPazJ. B. (1996). Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities: Performance comparisons and impact on spelling. The Journal of Special Education30(1), 35–57.
48.
MacciniP.GagnonJ., & HughesC. (2002). Technology-based practices for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 247–261.
49.
MarstonD.DenoS. L.DongilK.DimentK., & RogersD. (1995). Comparison of reading intervention approaches for students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62, 20–37.
50.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E., & ShiahR. (1997). Can computers teach problem-solving strategies to students with mild mental retardation?Remedial and Special Education, 19, 157–165.
51.
Math Blaster.Math Blaster [Computer Software]. Vivendi Universal Publishing: Knowledge Adventure.
52.
MeansB. (2001). Technology use in tomorrow's schools. Educational Leadership, 58(4), 57–61.
53.
MeansB.PenuelW., & PadillaC. (2001). The connected school.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
54.
MontgomeryD. J.KarlanG. R., & CoutinhoM. (2001). The effectiveness of word processor spell checker programs to produce target words for misspellings generated by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology16(2), 27–41.
55.
National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.BransfordJ.BrownA. L., & CockringR. R. (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
56.
OdomS.BrantlingerE.GerstenR.HornerR.ThompsonB., & HarrisK. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148.
57.
OkoloC.BahrC., & RiethH. (1993). A retrospective of computer-based instruction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(1), 1–27.
58.
OkoloC. M., & FerrettiR. (1996a). Knowledge acquisition and technology-supported projects in the social studies for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13(2), 91–103.
59.
OkoloC. M., & FerrettiR. (1996b). The impact of multimedia design projects on the knowledge, attitudes, and collaboration of students in inclusive classrooms. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7, 223–251.
60.
PugachM. C., & WargerC. L. (2001). How does technology support a special education agenda? In WoodwardJ. & CubanL. (Eds.), Technology, curriculum and professional development: Adapting schools to meet the needs of students with disabilities.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
61.
RaskindM. H., & HigginsE. L. (1999). Speaking to read: The effects of speech recognition technology on th4e reading and spelling performance of children with learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 259–281.
62.
RoblyerM. D.CastineW. H., & KingF. J. (1988). Assessing the impact of computer-based instruction: A review of recent research.New York: The Haworth Press.
63.
SolomonidouC.Garagouni-AreouF., & ZafiropoulouM. (2004). Information and communication technologies (ICT) and pupils with attention deficit hyper-activity disorder (ADHD) symptoms: Do the software and the instruction method affect their behavior?Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 109–128.
64.
United States Department of Education. (2004). Twenty-sixth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Parts B and C.Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
65.
WiederholtJ. L. (1986). Formal Reading Inventory.Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
66.
WilliamsS. M.BurgessK. L.BrayM. H.BransfordJ. D.GoldmanS. R., & Cognitions and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University. (1998). Technology and learning in schools for thought classrooms. In DedeC. (Ed.), ASCD yearbook 1998: Learning with technology (pp. 97–119). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
67.
WilsonR.MajsterekD., & SimmonsD. (1996). The effects of computer-assisted versus teacher-directed instruction on the multiplication performance of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 382–390.
68.
WoodwardJ., & BaxterJ. (1997). The effects of an innovative approach to mathematics on academically low-achieving students in inclusive settings. Exceptional Children, 63, 373–388.
69.
WoodwardJ.GallagherD., & RiethH. (2001). The instructional effectiveness of technology for students with disabilities. In WoodwardJ. & CubanL. (Eds.), Technology, curriculum and professional development: Adapting schools to meet the needs of students with disabilities.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
70.
WoodwardJ., & MontagueM. (2002). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with LD. Journal of Special Education, 36, 89–102.
71.
WoodwardJ., & RiethH. (1997). A historical review of technology research in special education. Review of Educational Research, 67, 503–536.
72.
YsseldykeJ. E.AlgozzineB., & ThurlowM. L. (2000). Critical issues in special education (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
73.
ZhangY. (2000). Technology and the writing skills of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32, 467–477.
