STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF AN ONLINE MATHEMATICS CURRICULUM DESIGNED FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES

Kristina Higgins, Lindy Crawford, Silvestri Silvestri

Abstract


Paper presents research on the perception of technology use including dimensions of computer self-efficacy, motivation, and independence of use of electronic support tools of students with learning difficulties in the context of an online mathematics curriculum. While all students showed improvement over the course of the program, some students showed more success with technology-based learning than others. Students with stronger academic profiles when beginning the curriculum were more likely to have higher levels of computer self-efficacy. The themes that emerged from the current study reflect motivation and fun, efficiency, and a diversity of learning strategies and support tools available. The themes of motivation and independence are also reflected in electronic support tool use. This indicates that students with different motivating or independently themed factors use the program in different ways by tailoring the electronic support tools to their individual needs.

Keywords


on-line mathematics curriculum, students with learning difficulties, motivation, self-efficiency, independence

References


American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson-Inman, L. & Horney, M. (1996). Computer-based concept mapping: Enhancing literacy tools for visual thinking. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40, 302-306.

Bandura, A. (1986). Self-efficacy: Toward a unified theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 94, 191-215.

Center for Applied Special Technology. (2012). About UDL. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/udl/index.html

Cooper, A. (2012). Today’s technologies enhance writing in mathematics. The Clearing House, 85, 80–85.

Crawford, L. & Freeman, B. (2011, September). The Math Learning Companion: Initial research into two curriculum components. Paper presented at the biannual conference of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington D.C.

Crawford, L., Higgins, K., & Freeman, B. (2013). Exploring the use of computer based electronic support tools by students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(3), 135-144.

Crawford, L., Higgins, K., D’Angelo, J., & Hall, L. (2014). Use of active electronic

support tools in mathematics. Manuscript in revision.

Deshler, D., Rose, D., East, B. & Greer, D. (2012). An open letter. The Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities. Retrieved from http://centerononlinelearning.org/wpcontent/uploads/OpenLetter_OnlineCenter.pd

Digital Directions International (2005). HELPMath. Retrieved from http://www.helpprogram.net.

Digital Directions International (2013). Math Learning Companion. Retrieved from http://www.mathlearningcompanion.net.

Englert, C., Manalo, M., & Zhao, Y. (2004). I can do it better: The effects of

technology enabled scaffolding on young writers’ composition. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(1), 5-22.

Ely, M., Vinz, R., Downing, M. & Anzul, M. (1997). On writing qualitative research:

Living by words. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.

Hampton, N. Z. & Mason, E. (2003). Learning disabilities, gender, sources of efficacy,

self-efficacy beliefs, and academic achievement in high school students. Journal of School Psychology, 41(2), 101-112.

Hanushek, E. A., Peterson, P. E., & Woessman, L. (2010). U.S. math performance in

global perspective: How well does each state do at producing high achieving students. Program on Education Policy & Governance Report No. 10-19. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School.

Keeler, C.G., Richter, J., Anderson-Inman, L., Horney, M. A., & Ditson, M. (2007).

Exceptional learners: Differentiated instruction online. In C. Cavanaugh & R. Blomeyer (Eds.) What Works in K-12 Online Learning (pp. 125-141). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Knezek, G., Miyashita, K., & Sakamoto, T. (1993). Cross-cultural similarities in attitudes

toward computers and the implications for teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 2(2), 193–204.

Lackaye, T., Margalit, M., Ziv, O., & Ziman, T. (2006). Comparisons of self-efficacy,

mood, effort, and hope between students with learning disabilities and their non- LD-matched peers. Learning Disabilities Research Practice, 21(2), 111-121.

Li, Q. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377-397.

Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning

environments: A literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 576-600.

Moran, M., Hawkes, M., & Gayar, O. (2010). Tablet personal computer integration in higher education: Applying the unified theory of acceptance and use technology model to understand supporting factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(1), 79-101.

Muir, M., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2004). The power of one to one: Early findings from the Maine Learning Technology Initiative. Learning and Leading with Technology, 32(3), 6-11.

Murphy, C. A., Coover, D., & Owen, S. V. (1989). Development and validation of the computer self-efficacy scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49(4), 893–899.

National Center for Education Statistics (2013). The Nation’s Report Card: A First Look: 2013 Mathematics and Reading (NCES 2014-451). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.

Schrank, F. A., McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Technical abstract (Woodcock-Johnson III Assessment Service Bulletin No. 2). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Tran, Z. (2005). Help with English Language Proficiency “HELP” program evaluation of sheltered instruction multimedia lessons [White paper]. Retrieved from www.helpprogram.net.

Wechsler, D. (2004). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (4th ed). London: Pearson Assessment.

Williams, P. E., Weiss, L. G., & Rolfhus, E. (2003). Psychometric properties (WISC–IV Technical Report No. 2). Retrieved from http://pearsonassess.com/hai/Images/pdf/wisciv/WISCIVTechReport2.pdf

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001, 2007). Woodcock-Johnson tests of cognitive abilities and tests of achievement (3rd ed). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (2012). Best practice: Today's standards for teaching and learning in America's schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Zhang, Y. (2005). An experiment on mathematics pedagogy: Traditional method versus computer-assisted instruction. Online Submission.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21277/sw.v2i6.258

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2016 Siauliai University

Siauliai university