Abstract
Three instructional strategies: team teaching, cooperative learning, and computer assisted instruction, were combined and implemented in an inclusive 3rd grade classroom. Students worked in cooperative learning groups in class and in pairs on the computers. A regular education and a special education teacher engaged in team teaching. Three commercially produced computer software packages covering computation and problem solving were utilized. The article demonstrates how special and regular education students can acquire mathematics skills together successfully when the strategies are research based, motivating, and effectively accommodate diversity.
Integrating Technology into Instruction in an Inclusive Classroom for Diverse Learners
Placing students with disabilities in regular classrooms, commonly known as inclusion, has been advocated by educators and parents (Haring, McCormick, & Haring, 1994) and is being implemented on a wide spread basis. Most educators would agree that classrooms are becoming more diverse every year even without inclusion. The students who are classified and placed in a regular classroom are only part of the changing demographics of American classrooms. Other factors contributing to the diversity in our schools are immigration trends, a highly mobile population, bilingualism, increasing cultural diversity. In addition, more children within the population who are not necessarily disabled are functioning with difficulty due to various behavioral and learning problems brought about societal trends (Rivera & Smith, 1997). Often, the general term "at risk" is used to refer to these children (Friend & Bursuck,1996). This is true in big cities as well as small towns across the nation. Thus teachers are increasingly being confronted with children who do not all learn at the same speed or in the same way.
Simultaneously, teachers are being asked to implement new curriculum standards and to strive for higher achievement and improve academic outcomes for all their students. For many educators the trend toward inclusion in particular seems to undermine these goals. No wonder so many teachers express dismay when the topic of inclusion arises. What is the answer to the educators' dilemma? The literature indicates that since the average classroom is becoming increasingly diverse with or without inclusion of students with disabilities, it is incumbent upon every teacher to implement a variety of instructional strategies that have been shown to be highly effective in inclusive classrooms.
Among these are; team teaching, cooperative learning, and computer assisted instruction (Friend & Bursuck). Not only can academic goals be addressed, but in classrooms using cooperative learning, interpersonal goals can be addressed as well (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). The benefits of cooperative learning are well documented (Slavin, 1990). Team teaching allows any student to receive instructional support within the regular classroom (Villa & Thousand, 1990). Computer-assisted Instruction joined with cooperative learning shows that pairs or small groups of students working together often results improved learning outcomes (Light & Blaye, 1990). In this learning environment, both high and low achievers could benefit from a cooperative social context to enhance their individual accountability and attentiveness (Mevarech, 1993). However, research was conducted only in regular classrooms with regular students.
We decided to combine these three strategies, team teaching, cooperative learning, and computer- assisted instruction, to teach mathematics in a 3rd grade inclusive class of twenty students. We called our strategy computer-assisted cooperative learning. Of the twenty students, four were classified as learning disabled. These four students had been receiving instruction in a self- contained special education class before they were included in the regular third grade class. Their average math level was early second grade. We decided to focus on the curriculum area of math because the teachers considered it one of the required subjects for elementary school students, and they like to teach to a heterogeneous class using technology.
Selection of Computer Software
We selected three commercially produced computer software packages that cover mathematics computation skills and problem solving skills appropriate for the third grade level.
All of the software programs feature animated graphics, sound, manipulatives and provide immediate feedback on students' responses. Software A, Mathkeys (MECC, 1994), is designed to be integrated with the Houghton Muffin mathematics textbook that was being used in the class. This software package was used as a major program to teach computation skills. It has different program options allowing the teacher to individualize assignment. It also allows students to count, group, add and subtract objects; study basic fact families; and group counters in set often. Various kinds of objects from apples to hamburgers are represented by the manipulatives. Children can choose from four different screen backgrounds. A kangaroo graphic gives feedback each time for learners' responses. A special button allows students to explore place-value concepts, model addition and subtract, and write notes about their activities. The package provides practice in addition and multiplication facts and in computation skills for the four basic math operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. It includes three basic programs. The first, Base Ten Blocks, uses the trading process to understand place value and the basic math operation concepts. The students manipulate blocks on a screen divided into three columns representing hundreds, tens, and ones. Making their own problems and input in the computer are encouraged. The second part of the package is called Hundreds Chart and utilizes numerical and visual patterns to practice number sequences and math facts. The third portion of the package entitled Counters gives the students unlimited time to solve problems and write their own problems. Software B, Fraction and Decimal Maze (Great Wave, Inc. 1995) was used as a supplemental material for teaching decimal and fraction concepts and values. Software C, Mathshop Jr. (Scholastic Inc., 1994) was used as a supplemental material for practicing problem solving and computational skills. These two packages are in instructional game format with animated graphics and digitized speech based on standard math textbooks. Children can play against computer using animated graphics with unlimited time for responses.
Computer Skills Training
Prior to the instruction, both regular and special education teachers received training on computer skills including utilizing a keyboard, mouse, and menu bars in the school setting. Subsequent training was provided to practice on each software package and read the instructional menu until the teachers were knowledgeable and comfortable with the computer and the programs. The students were having a computer class once a week required by the school's curriculum to learn basic computer skills during the school year. This helps reinforce using computers in mathematics learning with different software packages.
Team Teaching
The special education teacher briefed the regular teacher on the JEP (Individual Educational Plan) of the learning disabled students modifications necessary. The two teachers developed instructional plans and worksheets weekly. They shared the task of grading student worksheets and quizzes. In actual practice, the regular education teacher assumed most of the responsibility for the overall instruction and classroom management while the special education teacher gave individual support to both special and regular students. Throughout the semester the two teachers refined their team teaching skills and became a finely tuned instrument of education serving all the students in an enhanced classroom organization.
Implementing Computer-assisted Cooperative Learning
We selected the Team-assisted Individualization (TM) approach proposed by Slavin (1990) as a model for grouping. Students spent twenty minutes of each math period in the classroom and the remaining thirty minutes in the computer laboratory. First, all students were introduced to the principles of cooperative learning and were made fully aware of what behaviors were expected emphasizing cooperation and teamwork. Next the students were divided into groups of four. Each group (team) consisted of students with varying levels of achievement including a mix of genders. Students in each team were placed in pairs that were re-formed weekly. Teams were also regrouped monthly as indicated in Slavin's model (1990). Within each team one student was designated as the team leader, and within each pair, one student was designated to be the team manager.
|
For the regular third grade teacher and the special education teacher, details of how they would work together constituted a new frontier filled with uncertainty and apprehension. Neither teacher had done team teaching before and both were unsure of how to go about it. One thing they both recognized immediately was the need to define their roles within the classroom. They mutually agreed that the regular education teacher would design the cooperative learning schedules and the assignments with input from the special education teacher. Both teachers would collaborate on the teaching techniques to be used. Both teachers recognized the need for planning time and this was scheduled twice a week before the children arrived in the classrooms. They began these sessions reviewing the software together and learning how to implement it effectively |
Team members were seated together so that they could work cooperatively to complete class assignments. The teacher then instructed the students on mathematics skills.
In the computer laboratory, each pair of students was assigned to one computer. The teacher demonstrated one section of the software package relating to the math skills.
Subsequently, two students worked at one computer to complete the section of the computer program by reading an instructional sheet in which the procedures are explained. Each student was required to solve five problems at the computer and record answers on a worksheet. They discussed the problems together. If they both agreed the answers were correct, the partner began work on the next five problems. If they did not agree, they were required to rework the problems and come to a mutual agreement. When the work was complete both students would then sign the sheet. During this phase of instruction, the regular and special education teachers served as facilitators providing assistance when needed and monitoring on-task behavior.
During the next phase of the cooperative learning cycle the team leader would get all four team members together to check answers. If the members had different answers to a problem, the team would work together at the computer or review the procedures to determine the correct answer. If questions remained, the team would ask for the teacher's help. At the conclusion of this process, the team leader collected all the members' worksheets and placed them in the team's folder for the teachers to review.
After completing the session, students took a quiz. The team leader scored the quiz using an answer sheet produced by the teacher. The teacher checked the scores and computed the average score of the quizzes attained by each team member. At the end of the week, teams received a certificate rating them as "Super Team", "Great Team", or "Good Team" based upon their performance. These certificates were posted on the class bulletin board. Competition served as a motivator. Students did not get frustrated with the weaker team members since they knew that team composition changed regularly and that the amount of help they were allowed to give each other in preparation for assessment was unlimited.
For those students who needed extra help, the special education teacher would provide 10 minutes of instruction with small groups of students who were at about the same level of math. She would check their understanding of the main concepts and procedures for solving problems.
This cycle of teaching: working in pairs at the computer, discussing in teams, and taking an individual quiz, was adhered to during the entire semester.
Positive Outcomes for Students and Teachers
The teachers involved were of the opinion that working together enhanced their teaching skills and their job satisfaction. Collaboration proved to be the key to working effectively and confidently with a variety of learners. They concurred that the computer served as a teacher's aide in its instructional capacity.
The students were highly motivated by the animated graphics of the computer programs and lessons were always met with great excitement. The audio-visual hands-on context of the computer programs served to greatly reduce learning differences among the students. The visual imagery and manipulative aspects of the computer helped students whose learning styles are not usually met using traditional teaching methods. In addition, the use of cooperative learning and computer assisted instruction greatly increased the students' attention and time on task. This instructional environment engaged students and increased their enjoyment of skill learning.
Ninety-five percent of the students reported that they liked working with partners at the computers. The learning disabled students reported that they liked working with a partner because of the help they received when the work was difficult. They also reported having more friends and enjoying more class activities with their peers.
All students reported that they earned more in their groups and had fun working together. We observed that the stronger students actually engaged in higher level and critical thinking in this type of learning situation than in a traditional teacher centered classroom. All students demonstrated significant academic gains. Regular education students gained 23% and special education students gained 38% in their post test scores comparing with those of the pre-test. This outcome could be evidence that computer-assisted cooperative learning provided accelerated learning for the learning disabled students enabling them to improve.
Conclusions
Our experience illustrates the efficacy of math instruction in an inclusive classroom when powerful learning strategies are combined, and computer technology is integrated into teaching and learning. We found that when learning situations are structured cooperatively, regular and special education students can work together in pairs or teams to accomplish their common goals. All students can learn to accept different views from team members, understand each other, and support each other. Our experience also supports the premise that computer technology is an important part of an inclusive classroom (Friend & Bursuck, 1996). It can provide individualized, sequenced instruction in a highly motivating format. When students work together on computers within structured cooperative dyads, the problem of noncompletion of independent work is eliminated. We conclude that math can be taught effectively in an inclusive classroom setting using computers as a tool combined with cooperative learning models. When math instruction relies on the same tired instructional practices, inclusion is doomed to failure. When teachers and students are empowered by innovative strategies, the curriculum becomes accessible to all students.
| Ninety-five percent of the students reported that they liked working with partners at the computers. The learning disabled students reported that they liked working with a partner because of the help they received when the work was difficult. They also reported having more friends and enjoying more class activities with their peers. |
Friend, M. & Bursuck, W. (1996). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Haring, N.G., Mccormick, L. & Haring, T. (1994). Exceptional children and youth. 6th Ed. New York: Merrrill Publishing Co.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R.T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction.
Light, P. & Blaye, A. (1990). Computer based learning: The social dimension. In H. C. Foot, M. J. Morgan, & R. H. Shute (Eds.), Children helping children (pp.135-147). New York: Wiley.
Mevarech, Z. A. (1993). Who benefits from cooperative computer-assisted instruction? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9, (40), 45 1-464.
Rivera, D. & Smith, D. (1997). Teaching students with learning and behavior problems. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Slavin, R.E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Villa, R.A. & Thousand, J.S. (1992) Student collaboration: An essential for curriculum delivery in the 21st century.Jn Stainback & Stainback (Eds.) Curriculum considerations in inclusive schools (pp.117-143). Baltimore: Paul Brooks Publishing Co.
 |
 |