Microcomputers versus Resource Rooms for LD Students: A Preliminary Investigation of the Effects on Math Skills

Abstract

The SPARK-80 Computerized Mathematics System1 was evaluated using children with learning disabilities. The computerized instruction group (n = 12) received 40 minutes per day of SPARK-80 instruction at Radio Shack terminals, whereas the resource instruction group (n = 9) received traditional resource room mathematics instruction from experienced teachers for 40 minutes per day. Mid-year assessment produced significantly greater results for the computerized instruction group compared to the resource instruction group in terms of number of math skills mastered and fluency of problem solving. Moreover, compared to the resource instruction group, the computerized instruction sample produced over twice the yearly gains in achievement and in number of math skills learned. Results were statistically significant at the .05 level.

Effective Instruction with Microcomputers: Promises, Practices, and Preliminary Findings

“…For example, Trifiletti, Frith, and Armstrong (1984) compared a computer-assisted approach with the teacher-guided approach used in a resource room setting for teaching basic math skills to 21 learning disabled students. They reported that the 12 LD students who had received CAI math instruction for 40 minutes a day over a 4-month period learned almost twice as many new math skills as their 9 counterparts in the resource setting room.…”

“…That type of software will allow delivery of engineered instruction in classrooms that heretofore lacked such precision. A number of studies offers evidence to substantiate this promise (e.g., Collins, Carnine, & Gersten, in press;Trifiletti, Frith, & Armstrong, 1984;Fitzgerald et al, 1986). A summary of recent findings related to basic instructional design considerations for CAI and established principles of effective learning is provided below.…”

“…Instructional goals of CAI should be purposeful and explicit (e.g., Carlson & Silverman, 1986;Forman, 1982;Howell & Kaplan, 1980;LeBlanc et al, 1985;Ragosta, 1982;Trifiletti et al, 1984). Although the effectiveness of 9 CAI when the instructional goals are implicit (e.g., Factory) remains largely undetermined, much of the CAI with demonstrated effectiveness is based on mastery learning and direct instruction (Collins et al, in press;Woodward et al, 1985).…”

“…When responses are in the 90% -95% accuracy range, emphasis should be placed on speed of accurate responses. Trifiletti et al (1984) provided an example of this guideline in the following CAI algorithm for teaching math word problems: (a) If less than 60% accuracy on math facts, CAI provided tutorial instruction; (b) if 60% -89% accuracy with a speed of less than 40 digits per minute on math facts, computer-assisted drill-and-practice instruction was provided; (c) if accuracy of >90% with speed of DECEMBER 1986 40 digits per minute or more on math facts, word problems were introduced; and ( d) the skill was considered mastered when word problem performance was >80%. Torgesen (1986b) noted that careful measurement of student response latency should be built into CAI programs so that decisions can be made to determine whether a skill has been sufficiently overlearned.…”

“…Since their relative effectiveness appears to be directly related to the extent to which practices draw upon principles of learning and effective instruction (LeBlanc et al, 1985;Ragosta, 1982;Salisbury, 1984;Torgesen, 1986aTorgesen, , 1986bTrifiletti, Frith, & Armstrong, 1984), both fields share one other commonality: They face the task of changing existing practices and beliefs about what is effective instruction. Hopefully, the microcomputer field will not take 20 years to come to grips with this task!…”