Mathematics and At-Risk adult learners: Would technology help?

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 143-166

  Li, Qing ^a   Edmonds, Kelly A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008813605     PISSN: 15391523     EISSN: 19450818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2005.10782454     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Avitabile, J. (1996). Assessing change after a computer course for at-risk students. National Educational Computing Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED398879)
2. Barron, L. (1989). Enhancing learning in at-risk students: Applications of video technology. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED318464)
3. BC Ministry of Education. (2002). Special education services: A manual ofpolicies, procedures and guidelines. Retrieved December 3, 2002, from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/specialed/ppandg/planning_4.htm.
4. Bloom, B. (1971). Mastery learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &Winston, Inc.
5. Brown, M. R. (2000). Access, instruction, and barriers technology issues facing students at risk. Remedial & Special Education, 21(3), 182-193.
6. Creswell, J. W (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Donovan, S., Bransford, J., & Pellegrino, J. (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved May 6, 2002, from http://bob.nap.edu/html!howpeople2/index.html.
8. Edyburn, D. L. (2003). Introduction to the special issue. Remedial & Special Education, 24(3), 130-131.
9. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of se/fin everyday life. London: Penquin.
10. Hornbeck, D. W (1990). Technology and students at risk of school failure (IR014801). Minneapolis, MN: ERIC.
11. Johnson, R., & Hegarty, J. R. (2003). Web sites as educational motivators for adults with learning disabilities. British journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 479-476.
12. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Constructivist learning environment on the Web: Engaging students in meaningful/earning. Paper presented at the Education Technology Conference and Exhibition, 9-11 February, SUNTEC City, Singapore.
13. Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective (2nded.). Upper Saddle, River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14. Jonassen, D., Mayes, T., & McAleese, R. (1993). A manifesto for a constructivist approach to uses of technology in higher education. Retrieved May 12, 2004, from the Caledonian University Learning Services Web Site: http://apu.gcal.ac.uk/clti/papers/TMPaper11.html.
15. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
16. Jitendra, A., & Xin, Y. P. (1997). Mathematical word-problem-solving instruction for students with mild disabilities and students at risk for math failure: A research synthesis. Journal of Special Education, 30(4), 412-432.
17. Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. (1999). Destination literacy: Identifying and teaching adults with learning disabilities. Ottawa, ON: Author.
18. Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. (2001). Official definition of learning disabilities. Retrieved December 3, 2002, from http://www.ldac-taac.ca/english/defined/definew.htm.
19. Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. (2002, January). Official definition of learning disabilities. Retrieved April 20, 2004, from http://www.ldactaac.ca/english/defined/definew.htm.
20. Lewis, R. B. (1997). Changes in technology use in California's special education. Remedial &Special Education, 18(4), 233-243.
21. Li, Q. (2003). Would we teach without technology? A professor's experience of teaching mathematics education incorporating the Internet. Educational Research (UK), 45(1), 61-77.
22. Li, Q, & Edmonds, K. A. (2004, March). The effects on the achievement of adults with learning disabilities engaging in computer-assisted learning in mathematics. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Information Technology &Teacher Education. Retrieved December 15, 2003, from http://www.aace.org/conf/site/default.htm.
23. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.
24. Moll, M. (1997). Information technology in the classroom: pits and pendulum, A Poe-esian look at planning. Education Canada, 37(1), 6-9.
25. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
26. Nicol, M. M., & Anderson, A. (2000). Computer-assisted vs. teacher-directed teaching of numeracy in adults. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 184-192.
27. Price, L., Field, S., & Patton, J. R. (2003). Adults with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 24(4), 322-382.
28. Riley, R, Kunin, M., Smith, M., & Roberts, L. (1996). Getting America's students ready for the 21st century: Meeting the technology literacy challenges. A report to the nation on technology and education. Retrieved September 17, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/national/index.html.
29. Roblyer, M., & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
30. Splittgerber, F. L., & Allen, H. A. (1996). Learning and caring communities: Meeting the challenge of at-risk youth. The Clearing House, 69(March/April), 214-216.
31. The Meighen Centre for Learning Assistance and Research for Mount Allison University. (1996). Learning disabilities in the classroom: Handbook for postsecondary instructors [Brochure]. Sackville, NB: Author.
32. Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. W. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 79-142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.