Effect of computer-based instruction on students' self-perception and functional task performance

Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 106-118

  Chiang, Hsin Yu ^a   Jacobs, Karen ^b  

^a FU JEN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer based instruction; Functional task performance; Self perception

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; LEARNING DISORDER; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PROBABILITY; REFERENCE VALUE; SCHOOL; SELF CONCEPT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEX DIFFERENCE; TASK PERFORMANCE; TEACHING;

ADOLESCENT; COHORT STUDIES; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING DISORDERS; MALE; PROBABILITY; REFERENCE VALUES; SCHOOLS; SELF CONCEPT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEX FACTORS; SOFTWARE; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 66949117549     PISSN: 17483107     EISSN: 17483115     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17483100802613693     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Valentine JC, DuBois DL, Cooper H. The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Educ Psychol 2004;39:111-133.
2. Cosden M, Elliot K, Noble S, Klelmen E. Self-understanding and self-esteem in children with learning disabilities. Learn Disabil Q 1999;22:279-290.
3. Hagborg WJ. Self-concept and middle school students with learning disabilities: A comparison of scholastic competence subgroups. Learn Disabil Q 1996;19:117-126.
4. Bear GG,Minke KM. Positive bias inmaintenance of self-worth among children with LD. Learn Disabil Q 1996;19:23-32.
5. Harter S, Whitesell NR, Junkin LJ. Similarities and differences in domain-specific and global self-evaluations of learningdisabled, behaviorally disordered, and normally achieving adolescents. Am Educ Res J 1998;35:653-680.
6. Rothman H, Cosden M. The relationship between selfperception of a learning disability and achievement, selfconcept and social support. Learn DisabilQ1995;18:203-212.
7. Renick MJ, Harter S. Manual for the self-perception profile for learning disabled students. Denver, CO: University of Denver; 1988.
8. Harter S. Manual for the self-perception profile for adolescents. Denver, CO: University of Denver; 1988.
9. Greeberg E, Steinberg L. When teenagers work: The psychological and social costs of adolescent employment New York, NY: Basic Books; 1986.
10. Cotton K. Computer-assisted instruction 1991 [cited 1 October 1995]. Available from: URL: http://www.nwrel.org/ scpd/sirs/5/cu10.html.
11. Borgh K, Dickson WP. The effects on children's writing of adding speech synthesis to a word processor. J Res Comput Educ 1992;24:533-544.
12. Collins T. The impact of microcomputer word processing on the performance of learning disabled students in a required first-year writing course. Comput Compos 1990;8: 49-67.
13. Elkind J. Computer reading machines for poor readers. Perspect - Int Dyslexia Assoc 1998;24:1-8.
14. Elkind J, Black M, Murray C. Computer-based compensation of adult reading disabilities. Ann Dyslexia 1996;46: 159-186. (Pubitemid 126703751)
15. Elkind J, Cohen K, Murray C. Using computer-based readers to improve reading comprehension of students with dyslexia. Ann Dyslexia 1993;42:238-259.
16. Elkind J, Elkind K, Hecker L, Burns L, Katz L. Benefits of assistive reading software for students with attention disorders. Ann Dyslexia 2002;52:243-272.
17. Goodman G, Tiene D, Luft P. Adoption of assistive technology for computer access among college students with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:80-92.
18. Raskind MH, Higgins E. Effects of speech synthesis on the proofreading efficiency of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learn Disabil Q 1995;18:141-158.
19. Raskind MH, Higgins EL. Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: An overview. J Learn Disabil 1998;31:27-40.
20. Alissa A, Lange MM, Mulhern G, Wylie J. Assistive software tools for secondary-level students with literacy dificulties. J Spec Educ Technol 2006;21:13-22.
21. Christy A, Sorrell SMB, McCallum RS. Reading rate and comprehension as a function of computerized versus traditional presentation mode: A preliminary study. J Spec Educ Technol 2007;22:1-12.
22. Wissick C. Designing reading software for students with disabilities. J Spec Educ Technol 2000;15:63-66.
23. Montali J, Lewandowski L. Bimodal reading: Benefits of a talking computer for average and less skilled readers. J Learn Disabil 1996;29:271-279.
24. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundation of clinical research; Application of practiceStamford, CT: Appleton and Lange; 2000.
25. Schools BP. FY 2005 Budget 2005 [cited 15 March 2006]. Available from: URL: http://boston.k12.ma.us/bps/budget05/uss.asp.
26. Glenn S, Cunningham C. Evaluation of self by young people with down syndrome. Int J Disabil Dev Educ 2001;48:163-177.
27. Heath NL, Wiener J. Depression and nonacademic selfperceptions in children with and without learning disabilities. Learn Disabil Q 1996;19:34-44.
28. Shapiro DRM, Moffett A, Lieberman LJ, Dummer G. Perceived competence of children with visual impairments. J Vis Impair Blind 2005;99:15-25.