Computers and Special Education 1

Running head: COMPUTER NTERVENTIONS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION

A Surface Literature Review of the Computer Interface and Interventions within Special

Education and Academic Subject Areas

Bjorn Pederson

SPED 996B – Readings in Special Education

Professor Epstein, Ed.D

Summer 2006
 Computers and Special Education 2

Abstract

With the trend of computer access growing in classrooms, the need to understand the

effects of different computer interventions on student learning is growing exponentially.

This review examined a body of literature that applies to understanding the development

of the computer interface to the student across the years and the effect of computer

interventions within several academic areas focused on high-incidence special education

populations. Special education teachers need to be aware of the variety of intervention

types that are being offered in which the student’s success has been documented. The

results are summarized. Limitations and applications of the research are also discussed.
 Computers and Special Education 3

A Surface Literature Review of the Computer Interface and Interventions within

Special Education Academic Subject Areas

The idea of computers used as a supplement to the standard form of teacher-

student presentation within the classroom has been present since the 1960s (Hansen,

1968). With the introduction of computers beyond that of the laboratory, many different

hopes and educational goals were formulated. The computer could serve as a means of

reinforcing the learned concepts through drill and practice (Hansen, 1968). The computer

could function as a tutor (Brady & Hill, 1984; Tenney & Osguthorpe, 1990). The

computer could also be used to free the teacher from presenting remediation sessions to

spend more time engaged in quality teaching time (Antonietti & Giorgetti, 2006). While

these hopes and goals have been partiality realized, due to the power and functionality of

the present day computers, the hopes and goals have yet to be realized to the full extent

intended.

With the change and advancement of computer technology, the need to understand

the effect of this new technology on student learning has grown. Fundamentally the

computer and related processes within the computer has not changed (e.g. binary

functioning), but the ability to apply and use these processes has grown. As the applied

use of computers has grown, so have the power, speed, and management of the processes

of computers (e.g. increase in hard drive size, ability to manage a bigger volume of data).

Computers have increased in their ability to hold, examine, manipulate, and display

information. This increase led to changes in the way that people can interact with a

computer including (a) entering, (b) using, and (c) displaying information. The interface

of the computer has moved from a generally text-based or command line interface (i.e.
 Computers and Special Education 4

entering a command of print or run and waiting for the resulting text output) to that of a

graphical interface (i.e. the use a mouse or some other human interactive device to move

a graphical icon across the screen or to another location within the computer) (Berg,

2000). This movement from text- based to graphical interface has helped broaden the

population of computer users. Within the classroom, the move to a generally graphical

interface has allowed for greater acceptance into the classroom and has increased the

potential usability of the computer for both the teacher and the student.

With all the hopes and educational goals for computers within the classroom,

relatively few first-hand studies have been completed, examining the use of computers in

the classroom (Campbell, Milbourne, Dugan, & Wilcox., 2006). From the late 1960s to

the 1980s, published research into the use of computer and computer applications as a

learning medium reached its highest level. Since that time, the body of literature has

focused mainly on non-empirical topics (i.e. personal progress, descriptive and

theoretical papers) (Campbell et al., 2006). The 1980s and the 1990s talked of the

theoretical advantaged of using a computer with the population of students with learning

disabilities (Hall, Hughes, & Filbert., 2000).The non-empirical publications provide some

information about what has worked in particular situations with students and teachers as

well as a means communicating theoretical directions for future research. However, no

empirical information is provided for overall implications for general populations of

students and their learning process.

Computer assisted instruction (CAI) has been examined in a variety of different

settings within both mainstream and special education population of students. There

appears to be gaps in the amount of research surrounding the areas of spelling, reading,
 Computers and Special Education 5

and, the use of computers for behavioral interventions (Dawson, Venn, & Gunter, 2000;

Hitchcock, Dowrick, & Prater, 2003). With all of the excitement and potential viewed in

the use of computers in the classroom and CAI, the findings from the conducted research

may be over generalized (Brady & Hill, 1984). Only a limited number of large scale

studies have been conducted. A majority of the studies used small population samples of

less than 10, or have utilized post-high school students.

The purpose of this review is to examine two different areas of computers within

education settings. The first area is focused on the how the interface between the students

and the computers has evolved through the years. The second area is focused on different

types of interventions that have utilized a computer as a source of skill acquisition or skill

improvement as well as the results of those interventions.

Methods

Initial Selection Criteria

A review of published journal articles on the topic of computer based intervention

and special education research followed an initial two-step identification procedure.

First, an electronic database search of PsycINFO was conducted with the following

keywords arranged into three possible search fields for a total of 7 search term

combinations: (field one) computer, behavior disorder, emotional disorder, computer

aided instruction, computer assisted instruction, (field two) special education, computer,

academics, behavior disorder, emotional, and (field three) behavior, computer, emotional.

The search filter for peer-reviewed publications was selected. All articles selected were

also published between 1968 and 2006. In the initial database search, 357 articles were

identified from PsycINFO. Second, the 357 articles were screened for possible inclusion
 Computers and Special Education 6

using the following constraints: the study must have focused on the use of computers

being involved within the study, a review including studies mentioning the use of

computer as an intervention type with students in special education or other wise defined

as “at-risk”, or specific mention of historical uses of computers within general or special

education. A total of 91 articles were identified for possible inclusion.

Results

Computer Interface Evolution

Throughout the years there has been two main ways of human interface with

computers, the use of command language and the use of direct manipulation (Berg,

2000). The use of command language is commonly called the Command Line Interface

(CLI). This type of interaction with the computer is based on entering specific orders for

a process or action to happen (i.e. print, run, and load). The use of this kind of text based

input was prevalent in the early uses of computers in the classroom (Cotton, Gallagher, &

Marshall, 1978; Clements & Nastasi, 1999). The process involved understanding and

using the proper syntax for the computer or program to interrpret what was to happen in

the entered sequence of commands. The use of a graphical based input or graphical user

interface (GUI) involves more of a direct manipulation of objects. When a picture

representing a file is moved from one folder into another, the movement is interpreted by

the computer into a command language and the file is moved within the computer.

The use of the CLI-type of interaction for students involved performing planning

activities in order for the program to function as desired (Clements & Nastasi, 1999).

Planning for the commands meant the students had to have some prior knowledge of

what the commands needed to be entered to cause the computer to perform the task as
 Computers and Special Education 7

well as what effect the sequence of commands would have in the output. CLI type

interaction was also largely dependant on the use of the keyboard for entering and

executing the desired functions of the program (G. Fitzgerald, Fick, & Milich, 1986). The

text formatting of the letters used in the CLI environment were controlled primarily by

the monitor used. Text was either produced as white text on a dark background, a light

green text on a dark green background, or a light brown text on a dark brown background

(Graham & MacArthur, 1988).

With the growth of the power of computers and the inclusion of a higher level of

graphic capabilities of the personal computers in the classroom, the programs and

interface environment changed as well. While the use of the CLI environment was still

utilized, the commands entered into the computer or program would enable a graphic

image to change or move depending on the command used. The use of graphics in

combination to the typed commands helped to give a direct meaning to the term or value

that was entered into the program.

As the ability of the computer grew, the computer was able to have a better

handling of both graphic and entered commands. The use of a Graphical User Interface

(GUI) became common place among computers used in schools (Blok, van Daalen-

Kapteijns, Otter, & Overmaat, 2001). The main instrument of input into a GUI type

environment was the mouse. The mouse controlled the curser and moved it around the

screen as opposed to the CLI environment where the curser would generally move in

linear motions from left to right during typing, or up, down, left, or right using the

directional curser keys. The mouse had from one to three buttons for use in selecting

items on the screen to move, copy, or delete. With the GUI, files, storage, or program
 Computers and Special Education 8

executables could be represented with an icon to symbolize the item’s location or

placement. The use of GUI environments to operate computers not only became more

predominate, but also became common place among the programs that ran on the

computers.

The GUI allowed for operations on the computer or in programs to take place

without the student having knowledge of the command language needed to perform the

tasks desired. For a student to run a program, they did not have to be able to (a) use the

keyboard, (b) enter direct commands into the computer, (c) use the correct syntax, (d)

identify that it is the correct file, and (e) execute the file. The student now was able to use

the mouse, select the file using the buttons on the mouse, and performing a repeated click

of the mouse button, or double-click, to open a program. This use of GUI environments

in the classroom created bench mark for classroom computer use, pre- and post mouse

(Blok et al., 2001).

With the use of a GUI environment to interact with the computer, the student must

be able to understand what the different symbols present in the GUI mean in order to

understand what function of the computer or program is going to happen. A little icon of

a floppy disk is considered a universal sign for saving information at a particular point in

a program. As GUI environments grow in operation, the intuitiveness of using a computer

becomes easier. The need to remember command statements and syntax in order perform

tasks decreases. Programs running on a computer are able to use the GUI environment to

focus on the directed task for the student, rather than the student having to know the

coded sequence of events into order to write a paper using the computer. GUI

environments combined the use of symbolic icons and different forms of input to allow
 Computers and Special Education 9

access to the various educational programs in a more direct way. By isolating the various

skills such as writing a sentence or performing an arithmetic problem, the keyboard use

by student was more of a function to complete a direct educational task rather than the

key to gain access to the computer program.

However, the implementation of more graphics and making the interface appear

more inviting than an average computer screen does not always create a better learning

environment for the student. In Bahr, Nelson, Van Meter, & Yanna (1996), students were

given the task to produce a writing sample using two different word processing programs.

One of the programs was an older program using a GUI environment, but did not have

many graphical features within the program. The other program was considered to have a

heavy graphical representation in the presentation of the program. The students in the

study tended to show a higher quality of structure within the writing samples constructed

in the older word processing program. The authors attributed this to the older program

not having as many visual distracters present when the students had to produce their

writing samples.

A majority of the programs used in the classroom for any student involve a mouse

controlled GUI environment incorporating multimedia stimuli (Alcalde, Navarro,

Marchena, & Ruiz, 1998; Blok et al., 2001). Multimedia is the use of other forms of

stimuli in a computer program than just the reaction of sight on the computer screen to

induce a response. This goes farther than the use of the simple sounds that are able to be

created by the computer. This includes the use of a stereo sound, interactive video, and

hypertext. This aspect of multimedia brings an alternate form of engagement than the

traditional linear format of a text book or traditional video tape (Lawless & Brown,
 Computers and Special Education 10

1997). The hypertext, text linking to other information, gives the student an opportunity

to gather other information about sub-topics, not just the main topic of the presented

material. The linked to source could be found within the program, within the computer,

local network, or The World Wide Web (Dillon & Gabbard, 1998). Hypertext also allows

for different sections of the material to be presented at anytime the student desired

(Lancaster, Schumaker, & Deshler, 2002). Hypertext allows for more control to the

student in how and when the information is received, but can provide more flexibility

than the student is able to handle (Lawless & Brown, 1997).

The use of audio from within programs has been implemented as well. The ability

for a computer to reproduce a more human like voice has shown positive effect in quality

of answers given by school aged children to questions regarding drug and sexual activity

(Black & Ponirakis, 2000). The children reported higher instances of drug and sexual

activity to a computer presenting pre-recorded questions than when similar questions

were presented in a paper and pencil format. The use a computer produced voice has also

shown benefits with students learning social skills in which the text was read with the

corresponding picture and target actions, but the quality of the computer generated voice

comes into question (Dawson et al., 2000; Hagiwara & Myles, 1999).

Use of Computer within an Intervention

Writing. Two studies were found that stated specific computer use within a writing

intervention used on the students. In Graham & MacArthur's (1988) small subject study,

students were taught a self-instructional strategy in order to improve the length and

quality of a written product. Three students participated in this multiple baseline study.

The students were presented the strategy on the computer. Once the strategy was
 Computers and Special Education 11

mastered, the students produced handwritten essays. The strategy instruction appeared to

have transferred directly and maintained after the initial presentation.

The other study involved the use of two different types of word processors and

looked at the resulting entered essays (Bahr et al., 1996). This study examined the effect

of word processing programs that included a greater amount of helping and graphical

cues for the student’s writing versus word processors that focused more on typing the

writing sample with no visual cues from the program. The students reported higher levels

of frustration with the more complex program. The writing samples were longer in length

and the students spent a larger amount of time typing in the simpler program.

Reading. Within Bryant, Goodwin, Bryant, & Higgins' (2003) review of

vocabulary interventions, one of the reviewed studies specifically looked at the use a CAI

use to build vocabulary skills. A master list of 50 words was divided into different

amounts for presentation to the two groups. One group would have no more than 10

words per day and the other group had no more than 25 words presented per day. The

students with learning disabilities, receiving resource room support, were randomly

divided between the two conditions. This study was more focused on the amount of the

words presented per day rather than the influence of the technology on the students. The

type of activities mentioned used within the CAI were a series of multiple choice type

activities involving filling in the missing word in the sentence, identification of the

synonym and the antonym, and the use of arcade style game.

The use of computers as a means of modeling correct pronunciation when reading

aloud showed to have higher incidence of words read correctly per minute and words

read correctly in total per session (Dawson et al., 2000). Within the study, a total of four
 Computers and Special Education 12

elementary-aged students receiving special education services for emotional/behavioral

disorder (EBD) participated in a multiple treatment design. The design included (a) no

modeling / reading out loud independently, (b) reading out loud with the computer

simulated male voice, and (c) reading out loud with the teacher. While the result indicate

that the student performed better with the teacher, the performance with the computer

was significantly better than the independent reading. The use of the computer generated

voice was a built in function of the computers used in the study and no changes were

indicated to make the computer voice sound any more or less human-like than what was

present in the original systems. The authors did discuss that the digitized sound from the

computer voice was a limitation, but did not appear to have an adverse effects on the

students.

Within Hall et al. (2000) review of CAI interventions for reading and students

with learning disabilities, the 17 studies examined showed that CAI can provide support

to students who need help with further developing their skills. However, the review also

reinforces that the human element of teacher interaction and instruction is not

recommended to be removed from the instruction. While CAI can provide specific

practice for individual students, the need for a teacher to guide the instruction and

learning of the student remains a key piece in the overall practice of reading

development.

Math. A review of published studies concerning interventions for solving math

word problems included three studies involving CAI type interventions (Jitendra & Xin,

1997). Two of these studies involved comparing a CAI presentation verses a teacher

directed instruction. The third study involved different varieties of CAI including
 Computers and Special Education 13

animated or static pictures presented during the strategy instruction, and a control group

with static pictures on a computer and not presenting the strategy. The three studies

presented showed that CAI is a viable means to provide instruction for solving math word

problems. Some concerns discussed included the type of curriculum design that is

presented in the CAI or in the classroom and how well the two presentations are able to

work together. Another concern included the teachers and the students having the

resources and knowledge to implement CAI in the classroom effectively.

A review examining different interventions for mathematics specifically for

students receiving EBD services found one study dealing specifically with a CAI math

intervention (Hodge, Riccomini, Buford, & Herbst, 2006). The identified study examined

the results between using paper and pencil and a CAI drill and practice program to

complete basic computation review sets. The review does not describe the program used

within the study, but does mention that the outcome of the study had the students

preferring the use of the paper and pencil. This preference was speculated because there

was not any set reinforcement within the program and the students were able to perform

the sets faster by writing out the answers.

Spelling. The use of CAI in the context of a spelling intervention was explored in

one small population study and a review on spelling interventions which included nine

studies involving CAI.

The use of a spelling program versus a teacher presented intervention showed to

have little effect on the students (G. Fitzgerald et al., 1986). The program used in the

study had the students copy the word requested to spell and, after the word was correctly

copied, the student spelled the word with out the model. The teachers provided a
 Computers and Special Education 14

traditional approach, as defined by the study, of saying the word and having the students

write the word. There was also a control section of students that did not receive any

spelling intervention during the study. The outcome of the study showed that the results

of the CAI and the teacher presentation method showed little difference between the two.

Both of the intervention methods showed higher levels of correctly spelled words than

those students in the control group. While these results do not present a better means of

testing student’s knowledge of spelling, the use of the CAI intervention was noted to free

the teacher from directly giving the spelling tests.

Fulk & Stormont-Spurgin's (1995) review of spelling interventions included nine

studies that had a computer based or computer assisted instruction. Positive effects were

reported on interventions that examined: (a) individual spelling instruction, (b) time delay

word spelling, (c) providing positive computer activities, (d) increasing on-task rates

during spelling practice activities, and (e) error elimination and modeling. Within the

review the programs used in the studies were not described.

Special Education Specific Interventions. There were three individual studies

found dealing specifically with issues presented in special education learning areas such

as mediation after aggressive behavior, social skill instruction, and self-advocacy.

Use of a computer program to help cue a second grade student with EBD on

mediation techniques after an aggressive behavior incident showed promise in a small

population study (G. E. Fitzgerald & Werner, 1996). The student was trained to use the

program as means of communicating with the teacher about what happened to cause the

behavior and to provide a framework for writing a mediation statement. The program was

based on a flashcard type system with choices of the desired classroom behavior and the
 Computers and Special Education 15

undesired classroom behavior. The flashcards employed the use of language at the level

of the student as well as graphics to illustrate content of the cards. After making choices

regarding the desired behavior, the student had to write a mediation statement to the

teacher. This program showed a marked change in the amount of aggressive behaviors

across 25 school days. This system was also in place with a behavioral plan including

earning points for positive behaviors and the use of the computer to produce the

mediation statement occurred during the student’s stated preferred activities.

Another study involving the use of the same type of computer program showed

positive results in elementary aged students with autism learning the social skills of

appropriate hand washing and on-task behavior (Hagiwara & Myles, 1999). The program

incorporated a customized social story for the desired behaviors. The vocabulary was

crafted to the student’s level and pictures of the student themselves performing the task.

With each student that used the program, there appeared to be a trend to consistently

perform the desired tasks. Generalization of the behaviors was not reached during the

timeframe of the study.

A similar method was used to work with students with high incidence disabilities

in a high school setting for learning a self-advocacy strategy (Lancaster et al., 2002). The

strategy examined by the study was designed and intended to help students with

individual education plan meetings and how to advocate for the student’s needs and

desires for goals and service planning for the next school year. The program used in this

instance made use of hypertext and allowed the student to move backward and forward

within the training modules. This program also had video and audio clips to guide and

explain what each section was about. The interactive hypertext program was compared to
 Computers and Special Education 16

live instruction as well as to a control group with no strategy instruction. The results

indicated that the computerized strategy instruction had very similar results to that of the

live instruction. The results also stated that less direct teaching time was spent with the

students in the computerized instruction group (m = 68 min.) than the live instruction

group (m = 163 min.) by a significant amount. Both groups had a similar amount of total

time for the complete strategy presentation.

Discussion

This review examined the changing interface of computers throughout the past

four decades and looked at the use of computers within the classroom as a means of

intervention and looked. The interface between the student and the computer has moved

from a command line interface based entirely on text and knowledge of computer syntax

to a graphical user interface based on icons and is considered to be more intuitive for

students when using computers. The use of computer as an intervention tool was found

across multiple subject categories including math, spelling, reading, writing, and within

the specific special education areas. These interventions were reported to generally have

positive effects with the students for each intervention area when compared to the results

of non-intervention condition. The results for the computer intervention conditions

tended to have similar results to that of the teacher lead intervention. These results across

studies indicate that computer interventions for common subject areas within high-

incidence special education disabilities can be as effective as teacher lead instruction.

The use of computers within the school setting has been looked at for application

of various academic areas in order to support student receiving special education

services. The application of computer programs to support students has shown potential
 Computers and Special Education 17

as a viable resource for reinforcing and maintaining knowledge and strategy use by the

student. However, the generalization that the use of computers are as beneficial to

supporting students receiving special education services as live teacher presentations of

skills and strategies is not yet founded within the current literature. For this current

review, the studies and reviews cited tended to use small populations within a multiple

baseline design, not large populations with an experimental design.

The studies and reviews examined that showed positive results mentioned an

element of customization that was applied to the program in order to meet the needs and

match the academic abilities of the participating students. Understanding and adapting to

what the student’s needs are appears to be a common factor for a potential successful use

of a computer program within a special education population. This idea of a student first

focus is also one of the key underpinnings for how to approach any intervention for a

student receiving special education (Woodward & Rieth, 1997).

For the use of computer to be considered as a means to effectively work with

students, a few logistical issues need to be addressed (Jitendra & Xin, 1997). The areas to

be considered before making the commitment to using a computer as means to address a

student’s special education needs are (a) the cost of the hardware (i.e., computer, monitor,

keyboard, mouse) and the application software, (b) the teacher training and willingness to

integrate into the classroom routine, (c) the teaching of the fundamental skills for running

the computer to the teacher and the student, and (d) managing student behavior.

Presentation of the computer intervention is another area to be addressed. The

student’s educational level and ability to use the computer and the program need to be

carefully examined by the teacher. The movement from a beginning level student on the
 Computers and Special Education 18

computer to a more competent level should be monitored and mentored (Alcalde et al.,

1998). The definitions within the program and the graphical metaphors used for the

learning environment presented within the computer intervention are main areas to

address with the student (Brandon & Hollingshead, 1999). The teacher needs to be aware

of how the program is presented and what areas might need more direct guidance before

simply turning the student over to the computer program.

This brings forth another issue with the presentation of a computer intervention.

The teacher needs to know how well the program presents the material intended to be

presented to the student (Johnston, 1987). Understanding the strengths and limitations of

a program takes some advanced planning and time to figure out if the program will fit

with needs of the students. Also, the teachers needs to understand if there are any

customization options within the program and how those options might be applied to fit

within the needs and goals of the student.

Future research into computer interventions serving students with high incidence

disabilities needs to examine the following issues (a) how the changing interface of

computers has impacted the amount of time students have been presented with computer

interventions, (b) the amount of training time needed for a teacher to integrate a computer

intervention into their repertoire for students receiving special education services, and (c)

how the advertised product of a computer intervention compares to the actual use within

the school setting.

While computer interventions are seen as a means to save time and energy for the

teacher, there is still much to learn about the impact of the interventions and their effect.

Computers do provide a means for applying and further development of concepts, but the
 Computers and Special Education 19

power they have does not quite match that of human presentation and reinforcement at

least as of yet.
 Computers and Special Education 20

References

Alcalde, C., Navarro, J. I., Marchena, E., & Ruiz, G. (1998). Acquisition of basic

concepts by children with intellectual disabilities using a computer-assisted

learning approach [Electronic version]. Psychological Reports, 82(3), 1051.

Antonietti, A., & Giorgetti, M. (2006). Teachers' beliefs about learning from multimedia

[Electronic version]. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 267.

Bahr, C. M., Nelson, N. W., Van Meter, A., & Yanna, J. V. (1996). Children's use of

desktop publishing features: Process and product [Electronic version]. Journal of

Computing in Childhood Education, 7(3), 149.

Berg, G. A. (2000). Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) in educational environments:

Implications of understanding computers as media [Electronic version]. Journal

of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4), 349.

Black, M. M., & Ponirakis, A. (2000). Computer-administered interviews with children

about maltreatment: Methodological, developmental and ethical issues [Electronic

version]. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(7), 682.

Blok, H., van Daalen-Kapteijns, M. M., Otter, M. E., & Overmaat, M. (2001). Using

computers to learn words in the elementary grades: An evaluation framework and

a review of effect studies [Electronic version]. Computer Assisted Language

Learning, 14(2), 99.

Brady, E. H., & Hill, S. (1984). Young children and microcomputers: Research issues and

directions [Electronic version]. Young Children, 39(3), 49.

Brandon, D. P., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1999). Collaborative learning and computer-

supported groups [Electronic version]. Communication Education, 48(2), 109.

 Computers and Special Education 21

Bryant, D. P., Goodwin, M., Bryant, B. R., & Higgins, K. (2003). Vocabulary instruction

for students with learning disabilities: A review of the research [Electronic

version]. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 117.

Campbell, P. H., Milbourne, S., Dugan, L. M., & Wilcox, M. J. (2006). A review of

evidence on practices for teaching young children to use assistive technology

devices [Electronic version]. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26(1),

3.

Clements, D. H., & Nastasi, B. K. (1999). Metacognition, learning and educational

computer environments [Electronic version]. Information Technology in

Childhood Education Annual, 10, 5.

Cotton, J. W., Gallagher, J. P., & Marshall, S. P. (1978). A multimethod generative CAI

system for remedial mathematics [Electronic version]. Behavior Research

Methods & Instrumentation, 10(2), 203.

Dawson, L., Venn, M. L., & Gunter, P. L. (2000). The effects of teacher versus computer

reading models [Electronic version]. Behavioral Disorders, 25(2), 105.

Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of

the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style

[Electronic version]. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 322.

Fitzgerald, G., Fick, L., & Milich, R. (1986). Computer-assisted instruction for students

with attentional difficulties [Electronic version]. Journal of learning disabilities,

19(6), 376.
 Computers and Special Education 22

Fitzgerald, G. E., & Werner, J. G. (1996). The use of the computer to support cognitive-

behavioral interventions for students with behavioral disorders [Electronic

version]. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7(3), 127.

Fulk, B. M., & Stormont-Spurgin, M. (1995). Spelling interventions for students with

disabilities: A review [Electronic version]. Journal of Special Education, 28(4),

488.

Graham, S., & MacArthur, C. (1988). Improving learning disabled students' skills at

revising essays produced on a word processor: Self-instructional strategy training

[Electronic version]. Journal of Special Education, 22(2), 133.

Hagiwara, T., & Myles, B. S. (1999). A multimedia social story intervention: Teaching

skills to children with autism [Electronic version]. Focus on Autism and Other

Developmental Disabilities, 14(2), 82.

Hall, T. E., Hughes, C. A., & Filbert, M. (2000). Computer assisted instruction in reading

for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis [Electronic version].

Education & Treatment of Children, 23(2), 173.

Hansen, D. (1968). Computer-assisted instruction and the individualization process

[Electronic version]. Journal of School Psychology, 6(3), 177.

Hitchcock, C. H., Dowrick, P. W., & Prater, M. A. (2003). Video self-modeling

intervention in school-based settings: A review [Electronic version]. Remedial

and Special Education, 24(1), 36.

Hodge, J., Riccomini, P. J., Buford, R., & Herbst, M. H. (2006). A review of instructional

interventions in mathematics for students with emotional and behavioral disorders

[Electronic version]. Behavioral Disorders, 31(3), 297.

 Computers and Special Education 23

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 [Electronic version]. Journal of Special Education, 30(4), 412.

Johnston, V. M. (1987). The evaluation of microcomputer programs: An area of debate

[Electronic version]. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 3(1), 40.

Lancaster, P. E., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2002). The development and

validation of an interactive hypermedia program for teaching a self-advocacy

strategy to students with disabilities [Electronic version]. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 25(4), 277.

Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: Issues of

learner control and navigation [Electronic version]. Instructional Science, 25(2),

117.

Tenney, R. A., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (1990). Elementary age special education students

using self-directed or tutor-assisted computer-aided instruction to develop

keyboarding skills [Electronic version]. Journal of Educational Computing

Research, 6(2), 215.

Woodward, J., & Rieth, H. (1997). A historical review of technology research in special

education [Electronic version]. Review of Educational Research, 67(4), 503.