Perceptions of a computer-based instruction system in special education: High school teachers and students views

Work

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 349-359

  Chiang, Hsin Yu Ariel ^a   Jacobs, Karen ^b  

^a FU JEN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

reading; Self perception; teaching and learning

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; EDUCATION; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; READING; SELF CONCEPT; STUDENT; TEACHING; UNIVERSITY;

COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; EDUCATION, SPECIAL; FACULTY; HUMANS; PERCEPTION; READING; SELF CONCEPT; SOFTWARE; STUDENTS;

EID: 78650628343     PISSN: 10519815     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3233/WOR-2010-1089     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. M.M. Alissa, A. Lange, G. Mulhern and J. Wylie, Assistive software tools for Secondarylevel students with literacy dificulties, Journal of Special Education Technology 21 (2006), 13-22.
2. R.W. Bailey, Human Performance Engineering, 1989.
3. R. BeythMarom, K. Saporta and A. Caspi, Synchronous vs. asynchronous tutorials: factors affecting students' preferences and choices, Journal of Research on Technology in Education 37 (2005), 245-262.
4. K. Borgh and W.P. Dickson, The effects on children's writing of adding speech synthesis to a word processor, Journal of Research on Computing in Education 24 (1992), 533-544.
5. J.K. Chiang HY, Effect of computerbased instruction on students' selfperception and functional task performance, Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 4 (2009,3), 106-118.
6. S.M.B. Christy A. Sorrell and R. Steve McCallum, Reading Rate and Comprehension as a Function of Computerized Versus Traditional Presentation Mode: A Preliminary Study, Journal of Special Education Technology 22 (2007), 1-12.
7. A.a.A. Coffey and P., Editor, Making Sense of Qualitative Data, SAGE Thousand Oaks, CA, 1996.
8. T. Collins, The impact of microcomputer word processing on the performance of learning disabled students in a required firstyear writing course, Computers and Composition 8 (1990), 49-67.
9. A. Cook and S. Hussey, Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice, Mosby, St. Louis, 2002.
10. M. Cosden, K. Elliot, S. Noble and E. Klelmen, Selfunderstanding and selfesteem in children with learning disabilities, Learning Disability Quarterly 22 (1999), 279-290.
11. M.D.o. Education,MassachusettsComprehensiveAssessment System. (1998), (Retrieved January 8, 2006).
12. J. Elkind, UsingComputerBasedReaders to ImproveReading Comprehension of Students with Dyslexia, Annals of Dyslexia 43 (1993), 238-259. (Pubitemid 24751791)
13. J. Elkind, Computer Reading Machines for Poor Readers, Perspectives - The International Dyslexia Association 24 (1998), 1-8.
14. J. Elkind, M. Black and C. Murray, Computerbased compensation of adult reading disabilities, Annals of Dyslexia 46 (1996), 159-186. (Pubitemid 126703751)
15. J. Elkind, K. Cohen and C. Murray, Using computerbased readers to improve reading comprehension of students with dyslexia, Annals of Dyslexia 42 (1993), 238-259. (Pubitemid 24751791)
16. J. Elkind, K. Elkind, L. Hecker, L. Burns and L. Katz, Benefits of Assistive Reading Software for Students with Attention Disorders, Annals of Dyslexia 52 (2002), 243-272. (Pubitemid 36116238)
17. H. Gardner, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Basic Books, New York, 1983.
18. G. Goodman, D. Tiene and Luft, Adoption of assistive technology for computer access among college students with disabilities, Disability and Rehabilitation 24 (2002), 80-92. (Pubitemid 34105680)
19. J. GruberMiller, Developing listening and speaking skills: practical ways to implement the standard with the 'Oxford Latin Course', The Classical Journal 101 (2005), 87-98.
20. W.J. Hagborg, SelfConcept andMiddle School Students with Learning Disabilities: A Comparison of Scholastic Competence Subgroups, Learning Disability Quarterly 19 (1996), 117-126. (Pubitemid 126067986)
21. L. Hecker, L. Burns, J. Elkind, K. Elkind and L. Katz, Benefits of Assistive Reading Software for Students with Attention Disorders, Annals of Dyslexia 52 (2002), 243-272. (Pubitemid 36116238)
22. c. K., Computerassisted instruction, 1991.
23. C.A. MacArthur and D.B. Malouf, Teachers' Beliefs, Plans, and Decisions about ComputerBased Instruction, Journal of Special Education 25 (1991), 44-72.
24. H.R.Marcikiewicz, Computers and teachers: factors influencing computer use in the classroom, Journal of Research on Computing in Education 26 (1994), 220-236.
25. J. Montali and L. Lewandowski, Bimodal reading: benefits of a talking computer for average and less skilled readers, J Learn Disabil 29 (1996), 271-279. (Pubitemid 126702738)
26. M.Q. Patton, Editor, Qualitative Research&EvaluationMethods (Hardcover), Saga Publications, Inc., 2001.
27. J.V. Peluchette and K.A. Rust, Technology Use in the Classroom: Preferences ofManagement Faculty Members, Journal of Education for Business 80 (2005).
28. V. Piotroswki, Views of academic IO psychologists toward Internetbased instruction, The IndustrialOrganizational Psychologist 37(1) (1999), 52-55.
29. M.H. Raskind and E. Higgins, Effects of Speech Synthesis on the Proofreading Efficiency of Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities, Learning Disability Quarterly 18 (1995), 141-158.
30. M.H. Raskind and E.L. Higgins, Assistive Technology for Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities: An Overview, Journal of Learning Disabilities 31 (1998), (Pubitemid 128505113)
31. C.A. Sorrell, Reading rate and comprehension as a function of computerized versus traditional presentation mode: a preliminary study, Journal of Special Education Technology 22 (2007), 1-12.
32. J.C. Valentine, D.L. DuBois and H. Cooper, The Relation Between SelfBeliefs and Academic Achievement: A MetaAnalytic Review, Educational Psychologist 39 (2004), 111-133.
33. R.A.F. Vannatta, Nancy, Teacher Dispositions as Predictors of Classroom Technology Use, Journal of Research on Technology in Education 36 (2004), p253-p271.
34. C. Wissick, Designing reading software for students with disabilities, Journal of Special Education Technology 15 (2000), 63-66.