Computer technology, science education, and students with learning disabilities

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 155-160

  Kumar, David ^a   Wilson, Cynthia L ^a  

^a FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer technology; Learning disability; Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 52849117352     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1025622116227     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Aldridge, B. G. (1992). Project on Scope, Sequence, and Coordination: A synthesis for improving science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1(1), 13-21.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC.
3. Bos, C. S. and Vaughn, S. (1994). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavioral problems (3rd ed). Allyn and Bacon. Boston, Massachusetts.
4. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., and Williams, S. M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In Nix, D., and Spiro, R. (eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia. Lawrence Erlbaum. Hillsdale, New Jersey.
5. Bristor, V. J. and Drake, S. V. (1994). Linking the language arts and content areas through visual technology. Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 22(2), 74-77.
6. Champagne, A. B. and Klopfer, L. E. (1984). Research in science education: Cognitive psychology perspective. In D. Holdzkom and P. B. Lutz (Eds.), Research within reach: Science education. National Science Teachers Association. Washington, DC.
7. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.
8. Cuffaro, H. K. (1984). Microcomputers in education: Why is earlier better? Teachers College Record, 85(65), 559-568.
9. Donahoe, K. and Zigmond, N. (1990). Academic grades of ninth-grade urban learning disabled students and low-achieving peers. Exceptionality, 1, 17-27.
10. Dori, Y. J., Dori, D., and Yochim, J. E. (1992). Characteristics of an intelligent computer-assisted instruction shell with an example in human physiology. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 11(3/4), 289-302.
11. Egelston-Dodd, J. (1995). Proceedings. Working Conference on science for persons with disabilities. University of Northern Iowa. Cedar Falls, Iowa.
12. Fortner, R. W. (1990). How to combine language arts and science in the classroom. Science Activities, 27(4), 34-37.
13. Goldenberg, E., Russell, S., and Carter, C. (1984). Computers, education and special needs. Addison-Wesley. Reading, MA.
14. Goldman, S., Pellegrino, J., and Mertz, D. (1988). Extended practice of basic addition facts: Strategy changes in learning-disabled students. Cognition and Instruction, 5(3), 223-265.
15. Gregory, J., Shanahan, T., and Walberg, H. (1985). Learning disabled 10th graders in mainstreaming settings: A descriptive analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 6(4), 25-33.
16. Harnisch, D. and Wilkinson, I. (1989). Cognitive return of schooling for the handicapped: Preliminary findings from high school and beyond. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
17. Higgins, K. and Boone, R. (1990). Hypertext computer study guides and the social studies achievement of students with learning disabilities, remedial students, and general education students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 529-540.
18. Hofmeister, A. M., Engelmann, S., and Carnine, D. (1989). Developing and validating science education videodiscs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 665-677.
19. Hofmeister, A. M. and Lubke, M. M. (1988). Expert systems: Implications for the diagnosis and treatment of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 11, 287-291.
20. Holahan, G., McFarland, J., and Piccillo, B. A. (1994). Elementary school science for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15(2), 86-93.
21. Hythecker, V., Rocklin, T., Danseraeu, D., Lambiotte, J., and O'Donnel, A. (1985). A computer-based learning strategy training module: Development and evaluation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, 275-283.
22. Jackson, B. (1988). A comparison between computer-based and traditional assessment tests, and their effects on pupil learning and scoring. School Science Review, 96(249), 809-815.
23. Kumar, D. D., White, A. L., and Helgeson, S. L. (1994a). A study of the effect of HyperCard and pen-paper performance assessment methods on expert-novice chemistry problem solving. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3(3), 187-200.
24. Kumar, D. D., Helgeson, S. L., and White, A. L. (1994). Computer technology-cognitive psychology interface and science performance assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(4), 6-16.
25. LaJoie, S. P. and Lesgold, A. (1989). Apprenticeship training in the workplace: Computer-coached practice environment as a new form of apprenticeship. Machine-Mediated Learning, 3, 7-28.
26. Lawson, A. E. (1994). Research on the acquisition of science knowledge: Epistemiological foundations of cognition. In Gabel, D. (ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Macmillan Publishing Company, 131-176. New York.
27. Lovitt, T. C. and Horton, S. V. (1994). Strategies for adapting science textbooks for youth with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15(2), 105-116.
28. Patton, J., Polloway, E., and Cronin, M. (1990). A survey of special education teachers relative to science for the handicapped. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
29. Reith, H. J. and Polsgrove, L. (1994). Curriculum and instructional issues in teaching secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9(2), 118-126.
30. Simpson, R. D., Koballa, Jr., T. R., Oliver, J. S., and Crawley, III, F. E. (1994). Research on the affective dimension of science learning. In Gabel, D. (ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Macmillan Publishing Company, 211-234. New York.
31. Songer, N. B. (1989). Technological tools for scientific thinking and discovery. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 5, 23-41.
32. Staver, J. R. (1986). The effects of problem format number of independent variables, and their interaction on student performance on a control of variables reasoning problem. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(6), 533-542.
33. Stinson, B. (1993). Getting started with adaptive technology: Meeting the needs of disabled students. Florida Technology in Education Quarterly, 6(1), 71-76.
34. Tinker, R. (1987). In our view: Real science education. Hands On! 10(1), 2. (Technical Education Research Centers, Cambridge, Massachusetts).
35. van Geldern, L., Ferrara, J. M., Parry, J. D., and Rude, H. (1991). Local validation of mandate consultant An expert system for assuring compliance in the IEP process. Journal of Special Education Technology, 11, 113-120.
36. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
37. Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., Christenson, S., and Weiss, J. (1987). Time allocated to instruction of mentally retarded, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed and nonhandicapped elementary students. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 23-42.