Implications Of Computer Assisted Instruction On The Math Skills Of Kindergarten Language Minority Students With Disabilities PDF Download

Past research has documented that the effectiveness of three different math strategies delivered to students via one-on-one instruction (i.e., cover-copy-compare (CCC); e.g., Skinner, Turco, Beatty, & Rasavage, 1989, traditional drill and practice (TDP); e.g., Cybriwsky & Schuster, 1990, and constant time delay (CTD); Kulik, 1994). This study examined the effects of these three strategies that were delivered via a computer (i.e., computer assisted instruction, CAI) on first-grade students' mathematics performance. Addition skills for numbers that sum to 10 or less served as the target mathematics area. Variables of interest included: accuracy as measured by number of problems completed correctly, fluency as measured by digits correct per minute, average latency to respond as measured by time taken for the student to respond divided by the number of problems attempted within the CAI program, and number of learning trials as measured by number of opportunities to respond to presented stimuli. Pre- and post-test addition probes were examined on two variables, accuracy, and fluency. Teacher and student acceptability were assessed using rating forms. Further, follow-up probes were administered at one-week and one-month following the completion of the computer program to assess fluency and accuracy generalization and maintenance from keyboard typed responses to written responses. Results indicated no statistically significant between group differences on the instructional variables of interest examined during the CAI program. Further, no statistically significant between group differences were found on accuracy and fluency scores on the post-test, one-week and one-month follow-up probes. Students generally found computer procedures acceptable. In addition, there were no differences found on the measure between the CAI groups. Teacher ratings suggested a preference toward TDP and CTD procedures over CCC procedures. Possible explanations for these results, implications of the findings, and avenues for future research are discussed.