Neil Anderson
Centre for Learning and Development
PHD Confirmation Document, QUT, Queensland
(Contains details of the intervention program steps and the peer tutoring steps)
CHAPTER ONE
General use of computers in schools and by children with disabilities: The background
Introduction
This chapter will briefly examine the background to computers in the classroom and document the increasing pressures on schools to take up the new challenges offered by modern developments in computer technology. Equity issues concerned with computer use and students with intellectual disabilities will be presented and this will lead to the conceptualisation and scope of the study and research questions. A synopsis of the study’s objectives, limitations and design will then precede a fuller discussion of these issues in the methods section.
Since their inception in 1975, micro-computers have made staggering inroads into the educational process and society in general. This has occurred to a point where Aronowitz and Giroux (1993, p.63) claim that, "the whole task set by contemporary educational policy is to keep up with rapidly shifting developments in technology." Apple (1987, p.1) noted a decade ago in both government agencies and schools that " the computer and the new technology have been seen as something of a saviour economically and pedagogically. ‘High-tech’ will save declining economies and will save our teachers and students in schools." Apple (1987) was more sceptical about computers than the enthusiasts he was commenting on and outlined many of the concerns that would need to be addressed if computers were to enhance educational outcomes. Much of the research in the eighties examined whether computers were effective in the classroom or not. What was often ignored in these research studies was the theoretical foundations for these interventions and how the computer work was linked to other successful educational strategies, especially strategies supported by previous research.
In the United States, policy statements from A Nation At Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, cited in Lankshear, 1997) to the most recent Whitehouse press releases show a heavy emphasis on the value of computers in the educational context. The more recent speeches and press releases reflect a growing demand for connection of all schools to the Internet and to increase the number of computers in schools. President Clinton (1996, p.4) when remarking on the most recent technology initiative stated that:
with computers in the classroom and at home, linked together, homework is being done in a new way; classrooms, lessons take on a new life; parents and teachers can keep in touch by e-mail. Test scores have gone up and truancy and drop-out rates have gone down.
The euphoric message of the computer’s potential continues later in the address when Clinton (1996, p.4) claims that
Over 130 recent academic studies have shown clearly that the use of technology and support of instruction has led to higher achievement in language and art and math and social studies and of course, in science. We have dramatic proof of the power of technology to expand opportunity for our young people. We have to harness that power and spread it throughout this country.
Early this year President Clinton (1997, p.3) recognised that the computers alone did not lead to educational gains when he stated that "we sometimes get so focussed on making sure all the classrooms in the country are hooked up that we forget that the hookup is worthless unless the teachers and the students are trained to use it." Through evaluating effective research, teachers will be able to discern differences in approaches to technology in the classroom and different levels of effectiveness and use this to determine the most effective means of incorporating technology in a way that is meaningful and helpful to students, particularly those at a disadvantage.
Australia has followed an almost parallel educational technology path (albeit with less resources) to the United States. In 1988, technology was identified as one of seven key learning areas in the Hobart Declaration (Green & Bigum, 1993) and since that time there has been a rapidly escalating use of computers in primary and secondary classrooms. In 1992 the National Statement on Technology in Australian Schools confirmed a central place for technology in the National Curriculum and at the local level in Queensland the government has recently released ‘Schooling 2001’ which is a plan for increasing technology resources and training in many schools. In the foreword to the ‘Schooling 2001’ booklet, Peach (1997, p. iii) states that
the ultimate goal for the future development of the use of information technology in our classrooms is to improve students’ learning outcomes. There is little chance of schools successfully engaging students in the Knowledge Age if Industrial Age approaches to learning continue in our classrooms. There is an urgent need to move to a new educational paradigm if our schools are to be relevant in the new millennium."
Some examples of this perceived shift are shown in a table in the booklet (Peach, 1997) :
20 th Century
Students as passive recipients of information
21st Century
Students participate in active, hands-on approaches as independent learners
Focus on reading, writing, arithmetic
21st Century
Focus on higher order thinking, communication, computer and information-processing skills
Teacher as authoritarian figure
21st Century
Classroom management characterised by participative management and shared decision making
Teachers dispense knowledge
21st Century
Teachers facilitate learning
Grade-level, lock-step
21st Century
Ungraded, continuous progress, team teaching
The Schooling 2001 document is not only encouraging teachers to increase their use of computers in the classroom but also urges many teachers to change their basic pedagogical philosophies and classroom strategies in order to make optimal use of the new technology. Unfortunately very few research studies or even basic case studies exist to enable teachers to model computer implementation that is based on sound, modern learning theory. As many teachers feel uncomfortable integrating computers with their traditional strategies in traditional ways, it is imperative that they are presented with alternatives that have been trialed in regular classrooms and carefully monitored in terms of outcomes. The few successful case studies that exist are more in the category of ‘testimonials’ rather than rigorous research.
Evidence that teachers are not implementing technology policies effectively in Australia have been recently documented in the results of the National Schools English Literacy Survey, "Mapping Literacy Achievement - 1996" (Masters & Forster, 1997) where teachers from over 400 schools throughout Australia reported that the majority of students in Year 3 (63%) and in Year Five (56%) make limited or no use of computers in developing literacy skills (according to teacher perceptions). The only encouraging feature was the slight increase in computer use from Year 3 to Year 5. It is not surprising that this has occurred considering that funds have been predominantly used for hardware acquisition at the expense of teacher training and development. Lack of quality research in the field may also be a factor that has not been picked up in the latest rhetoric. Schooling 2001 makes a welcome move towards more teacher training, although does not recognise the lack of research needed to guide the direction and quality of this training, particularly in the area of higher cognitive skills and computing or computing with a focus on disadvantaged groups. Peach (1997, p.iii) emphasises that, "Schooling 2001 has a major focus on professional development and training, providing support for teachers and principals to develop further the skills and confidence to work in the new information rich, networked environment." Without a strong and compelling body of research in this area, the training and support given to the teachers can only be based on guesswork and may not ultimately be the correct direction to ensure maximum student outcomes for all students.
Research into how computers effectively link with the curriculum has been lacking. Green and Bigum (1993, p.2) agree that the escalation of computer use in schools has been without adequate research or deliberation on the part of Australia curriculum workers and has been driven by "economic and vocational considerations above all else, consistent with new state and government agendas of accountability, enterprise, productivity and control."
Hickling-Hudson (1992, p.2) argues that the "assumption about the potential of computers is part of a belief which Australian policy makers evidently share with those in the USA that schools must play a crucial role ... in making the work force internationally competitive in a world of high technology." This international competitiveness was evident in a recent local newspaper (Courier Mail, October 4th, 1997) when an article pointed out the high level of computers in the hands of teachers and students in Singapore and the fact that Singapore rated first in Science and Maths in a recent international comparison. Regardless of the accuracy of the reporting or the ‘international comparison’ it demonstrates a sensitivity to concerns about other nations gaining economic ascendancy through a better education in technology. An attitude of competitiveness in technology education could be detrimental to incentives for research in the area of technology where the research concerns low incidence groups such as children with intellectual disabilities.
In Australia for the last few years, a large company has offered grants for schools wishing to implement technology programs coupled with research. One of the main criteria was that the programs developed should be able to be widely adopted and used by as many schools and students as possible. Lankshear and Knobel (1997) and Bigum and Green (1992) point out that technology use in schools is also to do with creating a future market or group or ‘consumers’ who will later continue to support the technology industry. Low incidence groups do not constitute a large mass market. This effectively creates a barrier to research for low incidence groups. An argument to counter this is that conclusions drawn from research with low incidence groups may also highlight successful strategies that are applicable to all groups.
Computer Research with an Equity Focus
Many research studies and meta-analyses of studies with an equity focus concentrate on computer use and the effects of race, gender and social class difference and more rarely students with learning disabilities. Very rarely do students with intellectual disabilities rate a mention. Sutton (1991) reviewed a decade of research in computers and equity but in her otherwise comprehensive report did not include anything at all about computers and children with intellectual disabilities. Likewise in the U.S. Becker and Sterling’s (1987) review concentrated on race, gender and social status, while an Australian review by Chambers and Clarke (1987) also followed the same themes without considering equity issues related to students with intellectual disabilities.
Gardner and Bates (1991, p.98) highlighted that "although numerous remarks from special education teachers and professionals assert that computers motivate learning and improve the attitudes of exceptional students, detailed empirical analysis or validation of comparable themes has generally been absent in the literature." A search of the ERIC database with the terms ‘computers’ and ‘intellectual disabilities’ fetched a total blank whereas ‘mental retardation’ and ‘computers’ revealed only 98 articles. When these were examined to determine studies concerning students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, less than 10 remained. Out of these only two looked at interventions based on higher order or challenging computer tasks and these reports did not contain compelling quantitative or qualitative evidence. These students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities are the students most likely to be included in regular schools as a result of new legislation and this is an area where many teachers are not confident about developing educational programs of any kind, especially in areas such as computing where they may also lack confidence.
A recent article in the Queensland Government magazine, Education Views (Anderson, 1997a) led to a flood of E-mail to the author from teachers across the state requesting the text of previous journal articles on implementing a technology plan with a focus on students with disadvantages. Requests were also received from university students and a ministerial committee on equity matters. This is a strong indication, at least on the local level, that a need exists to more fully explore and document this area.
The area of computer attitudes, defined as students’ likes and dislikes about computer work, have been well researched with the general school population, although only a few studies exist in relation to students with intellectual disabilities. Gage and Berliner (1984) found that attitudes played a significant role in special needs students’ arousal to action and the successful performance of purposeful activities.
Given that this proposed study focuses on an intervention that seeks to capitalise on existing or developed positive computer attitudes, it is important to examine the findings of the few studies that have been conducted in this area. Gardner and Bates (1991, p.101) studied 59 American students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities from four different geographic areas. Public and private schools were covered, so a wide range of socio-economic differences were evident. The students were predominantly girls (68%) and were in the older age group of 13-23. A structured interview technique was used and the data were categorised to determine the students’ attitudes and attributions of these attitudes. The following is a summary of the findings:
1) Computer work was considered easier than other kinds of school work.
2) Students thought they learned more when they used computers
3) Students thought that the computer was a good teacher
4) Students liked using computers in school.
5) Students believed that it was easy to know when they got things right on the computer, however it was harder to know if they got things wrong.
6) Students felt smart when they used computers
7) Students wanted to use computers more during the school day.
8) Students believed that using computers represented work not play.
9) Computer work was considered more enjoyable than other kinds of school work.
10) Despite student’s attraction to computer work, the majority felt that they did their best schoolwork at their desks versus the computer, (Gardner and Bates, 1991, p.101)
The last finding could be related to the fact that in all sites studied the principal focus of computer use was in the domain of skill building using ‘drill and practice’ type software and on the average the students accessed the computers only twice a week in sessions of 22 minutes. This study provided useful information but may not necessarily equate to students with intellectual disabilities in regular classroom settings, the students are of an older age group and were not involved in computer activities engaging the students in higher cognitive skills. Further examination of students’ computer attitudes where the students with intellectual disabilities are included in regular class settings is long overdue considering the ever increasing placement of these students in mainstreamed situations.
Previous programs with computers, children with intellectual disabilities and higher order thinking skills
Although implementation of previous programs have been documented as ‘accounts’ rather than research studies, they still provide useful insights that can be used to inform new studies and a create a foundation to build upon. Gerber (1994) was acutely aware of the need to incorporate higher order thinking skills into her computer activities with mainstreamed special needs students. She used Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy to ensure that the planned computer art activities included comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation as well as knowledge. This was in response to studies by Gartner (1986), Guess, Benson and Seigal-Causey (1985) and Houghton, Bronicki and Guess (1987) who determined that students with intellectual disabilities progressed through the day with very few opportunities to make decisions or engage in higher cognitive tasks. Gerber (1994, p.29) chose computer art because "art programs for the computer go beyond the rote recitation of drill and practice to encourage creative decision making." The computer art programs reduced the risk of failure through their ability to ‘undo’ steps and allowed the students to engage in design and provided an ideal opportunity for discussion, evaluation and teacher assisted metacognitive awareness. Gerber (1994) points out that art was one of the first regular school subjects offered to mainstreamed special education students as it was considered ‘nonacademic’, although the lessons were often situated at a higher level than some students could cope with. The computer art programs, while allowing for creativity and decision making could be paced according to the child’s development and captured the students’ interest "because they use beautiful colours and have clear icons and easily accessed menus". The disadvantage of computer art programs is their lack of applicability to employment related activities and they do not lead to expertise in tools used in everyday modern life such as afforded by desktop publishing software. Computer paint activities, however may serve as an ideal stepping stone to computer publishing work in that positive attitudes may be fostered and higher order thinking introduced. Gerber (1994, p.26) claims that
students with mental retardation undergo many unsuccessful trials before a task is finally accomplished. Their history of past failures creates a cycle or expectation of more failures, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Art can break that cycle while providing opportunities for choice making...
Computer art work provides an ideal introduction to the higher demands of desktop publishing and would serve as an effective and complementary starting activity before moving on to desktop publishing.
Hayward (1990) introduced computer animation to a group of 12-14 year old students with moderate learning difficulties. In describing the value of exposing the students to this activity, Hayward (1990) acknowledged the value of the higher order thinking skills needed to complete the task and that
the skills acquired are consistent with today’s curriculum, particularly design and technology. Having learnt to animate with a computer, pupils with special educational needs will have improved their ability to visualise, plan and work with others which will help them in their adult lives.
Hayward (1990) encouraged the students to work together in groups and to discuss their work as well as giving students titles such as ‘camera operator’ etc to add authenticity to the task. Unfortunately little evidence or description of student outcomes is evident.
Soto (1994) sought to improve the cognitive skills and self-esteem of four preschool children with intellectual disabilities by integrating computer work with manipulation of concrete materials, dance painting and singing. Concepts such as shape, colours, letters and numbers were targeted for the intervention. In this intervention the computer was used to assist introducing the concept and for practise. An examination of the computer activities reveals that the computer was predominantly used for drill and practice and that the high order cognitive tasks were not linked to the computer work.
One apparent weakness in all three studies, at least according to educators with constructivist leanings is the lack of links between the types of activities engaged by the students and the students own needs and interests. It is assumed that the students will be interested in computer painting, animation or activities associated with the teacher’s concept development goals. There is no evident attempt to form an association between the activity and the students’ own needs and interests. While the activities may have a certain intrinsic interest for students, it may be more effective to link these activities to the students’ prior learning, needs and interests and the current unit of instruction in the regular school or class work.
Conceptualisation and Scope of the Study
Philosophical and legislative changes in Australia have caused a change in placement for many students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities from a segregated special school setting to regular schools. In a traditionally dual system where teachers were trained to be ‘special education’ teachers or ‘regular’ teachers, it is not surprising that many teachers lack confidence in their ability to effectively plan instruction for students with special needs. With the increasing ‘technologising’ of education teachers are expected to be able to integrate the use of computers in their curriculum delivery. Along with these factors is the growing awareness of the importance of higher level cognitive tasks for all students.
This investigation aims at developing and implementing an educational intervention for students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities in regular school settings. The intervention seeks to involve the students with computers in a way that focuses on higher order skills and thinking and is based on sound constructivist learning theory. This intervention is built on a pilot study involving one child with intellectual disabilities in a regular setting (Anderson, 1995c). This program was specifically aimed at increasing the child’s computing ability along with reading, writing and communication skills and to increase some of her self-concept areas and peer acceptance of her. This study aims at formalising the program for use with a group of students and to more carefully describe the results and to look at the reasons why these results occur. In order to achieve these objectives a set of research questions has been determined.
Research Questions
1) Are any changes to self-perception evident after the treatment program ?
2) Are any changes to academic performance in reading or spelling or computer skills evident after the treatment program?
3) How does the communication of the participants develop during the peer tutoring section of the intervention? Why does the communication pattern change or not change during the intervention?
Aims and Objectives of the Study
The aims of this study are to develop and implement an intervention for students with intellectual disabilities that makes use of computers and higher order cognitive tasks and to quantify the student outcomes in key areas.
Accordingly, the objectives of this study are to :-
a. Develop a framework for the intervention based on the pilot study (Anderson, 1995c)
b. Investigate the characteristics considered to be critical in the success of the pilot study :- the inclusion process, peer tutoring, constructivist learning theory, self-concept and computing for students with intellectual disabilities.
c. Modify the framework according to information ascertained from the literature review.
d. Investigate the pre-intervention levels of reading, spelling computer skills and self-concept areas.
e. Implement the intervention and conduct a case study focussing on communication
f. Investigate post-intervention measures for reading, spelling computer skills and self-concept areas.
g. Extract and analyse data concerning student outcomes.
h. Draw implications for instruction.
Assumptions and Limitations
This study seeks to examine the effects of an intervention involving a particular target group and although it is hoped that the framework developed includes strategies to improve the educational outcomes of the participants, it is not assumed that the success of the pilot program (Anderson, 1995a) will automatically be replicated with a different group. Although the intervention steps are thoroughly researched and backed up by prior studies, it is acknowledged that many of these studies cited were not investigating children with intellectual disabilities placed in regular classrooms. It is also recognised that other variables may effect the achievement of the students over the time of the intervention eg. change of schools, purchase of a home computer etc. Although the group of six participants in the purposeful sample is small when considering quantitative data, it is a large group for a case study approach. Information gleaned from the study may be generalisable in combination with other similar studies and will significantly add to the meagre amount of existing research in this area.
Design
This study uses embedded case study method to combine both qualitative and quantitative data collected from a variety of data collection procedures. This data will be analysed for pattern matching and converged in a triangulated fashion or complementary fashion. Attention will be given to identification of critical incidents or episodes that illustrate developments relevant to the research questions. Propositions developed from the pilot study have been used to formulate useful questions that will form an effective ‘bounded system’ to make collection and analysis manageable.
Significance of the Study
The existing evidence to support any type of intervention for students with intellectual disabilities is mainly anecdotal and does not include details of the type of changes in student outcomes. The process of inclusion has been based on philosophical / human rights grounds and legislative requirements. It is time to rigorously examine the educational effect of inclusion and particularly to subject interventions for this target group to scrutiny and to enable informed debate and refining of techniques to ensure effective teaching for special needs students in regular settings. This study seeks to establish a link between prior research and modern learning theory and the proposed intervention. This is a process not often used in the development of school based interventions. For example the practice of grade retention is still popular despite learning theory and countless studies showing the detrimental effects of this practice.
The use of computers has increased markedly and current future plans such as ‘Schooling 2001' in Australia and President Clinton’s plan in the US clearly show an increasing use of computers. Very few studies have looked at computer inventions and how their use relates to current learning theory. Like ‘inclusion’ computer use is often driven by other factors apart from student outcomes. This study examines both learning theory and computer use for students with intellectual disabilities, thus combining two obvious needs in educational research.
Conclusion
This chapter has presented the background to the study and has outlined some concerns about the lack of research in the area of technology use by students with intellectual disabilities in regular school settings. A need has been demonstrated to examine inclusion, constructivist learning theory, peer tutoring and self-concept, therefore these topics will be the subject of the literature review in Chapter Two. Gerber (1994, p.25) points out that computers have been used with special needs students "primarily for the drill and practice of skills and concepts. Computers allow students to practice at their own pace and for as long a time as is necessary. Though this is an invaluable system of review for both students and teacher, the computer can be used to enhance decision making skills." It is not only time to increase our use of computers in other areas apart from drill and practice, it is also time to examine the effects of such increasingly popular approaches through effective research.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter provides an examination of areas that were found to be of critical importance in the pilot study (Anderson, 1995c). A full understanding of these areas is an important factor in the progression from the pilot study to a more carefully considered and implemented intervention. These areas concern issues related to inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classrooms, constructivist learning theory, peer tutoring and self-perception.
INCLUSION OF STUDENTS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES
The advantages of ‘including’ children with intellectual disabilities in regular classrooms have been strongly presented in the literature produced during the last ten years in many countries (Foreman, 1996). Despite this, very little compelling quantitative or qualitative evidence about student outcomes has been forthcoming to support or debunk these claims. Concern has been expressed by Marks (1993), Knight (1994), Gerber (1995), Mastropieri and Scruggs (1995), Martin (1995) and Bain (1992), Slee (1993) that the rhetoric of ‘inclusion’ has succeeded in changing placement options for many children but has not necessarily increased educational or social outcomes. In short, there is a strong argument that changes have only been made in terms of the site at which educational delivery takes place rather than a fundamental embracing of inclusive educational practices. Martin (1995, p.193) laments that, "unfortunately, the careful examination of the effectiveness of special education - including mainstreaming - has not, for the most part, been forthcoming". He describes the research on mainstreaming outcomes as a mere ‘sprinkling’. Gerber (1995) describes many positive reports of inclusion successes as ‘testimonials’ rather than effective research. Slee (1993, p.352) argues that, "discourse, procedures, and even sites may change, but traditional ends are affected because of the resilience of ideologies of ‘failure’ and ‘normality’, and the established bureaucracies which sustain these understandings." Research is not needed to add weight to either side of the inclusion debate as inclusion is a legislative and policy reality that schools must face. Rather, it is needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of various approaches, so that schools and teachers can offer children a chance to reach their maximum potential.
The importance of inclusion to schools and communities in the local context is evidenced by publicity given to the subject in the popular press under headings such as ‘Timebomb of the Disabled’ (Courier Mail, March 23rd & March 24th, 1995), court cases showing that problems have been experienced and have been unresolved at the school level (Queensland Teachers Union Journal, 22nd May, 1997) and an on-going debate in many education journals (Slee, 1993; Walsh, 1993). This has been coupled with an increasing rate of placement in regular schools of children with disabilities (Bain, 1992 ; Dempsey & Foreman, 1995; Sawyer, Margaret, McLaughlin & Winglee, 1994). Inability of schools to cope with some students with severe intellectual disabilities has led the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Tribunal to describe those particular situations as ‘unjustifiable hardship’ and to support exclusion of children demonstrating grossly disruptive behaviour (McCollow, 1997). Although these incidents have been the exception rather than the norm, they have led to a situation where many teachers and schools experience fear and anxiety when faced with the enrolment of students with disabilities. Knowledge of effective strategies and programs to enhance the classroom learning of students with disabilities are essential to alleviate these fears and to ensure that inclusion is an educational success rather than a social justice or economic success.
In order to develop effective programs in the area of inclusion it is important to examine the nature of the terms associated with this concept and how the language has changed over time. It is also advantageous to review the legislation which has had a significant effect on placement and services delivery and also to examine individually the areas where problems may arise in implementing programs for children with intellectual disabilities.
Defining Terms
Terms such as ‘inclusion’, ‘integration’, ‘normalisation’ and ‘mainstreaming’ have been used to describe service delivery whereas terms such as ‘retarded’, ‘disabled’, ‘impaired’ and ‘handicapped’ have been used to describe individuals. Often these terms have been used interchangeably with little thought to the differences in meaning associated with the terms. There has also been a subtle difference in how the terms are situated in the text. It has been argued that ‘students with disabilities’ puts the student first and the disability later, whereas ‘disabled students’ places the disability as the most important factor in the description, thereby having a dehumanising effect. Foreman (1996, p.4) argued during the International Year of Disabled Persons (IYDP) in 1981 that people with disabilities expressed a strong view that they wished to be regarded as people first and that, ‘they didn’t want their disability to be seen as the most significant part of their personality or the main expression of their humanity." Placement of disability descriptions after the names may seem to some as an argument in semantics but it does represent a shift in public perception of people with disabilities and shows respect for their point of view. Foreman (1996, p.12) claims that, "some people dismiss concerns about discrimination in the use of language as ‘political correctness’. However, there are frequently important social justice issues at stake, and this is particularly the case in relation to people with disabilities". The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (1995, p.53) suggests that authors should place the person first then the disability and, "the guiding principle for ‘non-handicapping’ language is to maintain the integrity of individuals as human beings."
Foreman (1996) argues that the way we use language affects the way we think about issues. The effects of negative labelling on children with disabilities have been well documented (Reynolds, Wang & Walberg, 1987). Conversely, Gerber (1995, p.181) contends that the language of inclusion is cleverly devised to sell the concept to the public. He feels that the term ‘inclusion’, "shrewdly offers itself as a remedy for the implied opposite - exclusion - and in doing so nimbly sidesteps many serious, enduring empirical questions about the organisation of schooling and its effectiveness for all children."
Terms and their perceived meanings are important issues in designing and describing programs for children with disabilities. Misuse of terms can prove offensive to people with disabilities and confuse readers when examining the various issues and blur the meaning of research. For example when studies claim that there has been an increase in ‘integration’ of students with disabilities and others point to an increase in ‘mainstreaming’ of students with disabilities, are they describing the same process? One of the first terms used was ‘normalisation’ which according to Foreman (1996, p.8) was based on the writings of Bank-Mikkelsen (1969, cited in Foreman), Wolfensberger (1972, cited in Foreman) and Nirje (1970, cited in Foreman) and refers to the social justice principle that people are entitled to live as ‘normal’ a lifestyle as possible within their communities. Within an educational context, this means that whenever possible a student should have the opportunity to attend a regular, local school.
Integration is a broad term referring to a child’s placement in a regular school for part or all of the school day. However the term may not mean that the child attends a regular class. With integration, the student may be part of a special education unit within a regular school. In this instance the amount of contact with regular class peers can vary dramatically in the amount of contact with regular students. It also describes the movement of students from more restrictive to less restrictive environments. Integration focuses on physical placement, eg. in the grounds of a regular school. Martin (1995, p.197) wrote that, "integrated placement, however important and philosophically significant, is not a major determinant of success. Instruction is the key ingredient, as is creating a climate of success and positive self-regard".
Mainstreaming refers to placement of a student with disabilities in a regular class. Again, with mainstreaming the emphasis is on physical placement. The term inclusion also refers to placement in a regular class but implies that child be ‘included’ in regular class activities and that an ‘inclusive’ curriculum be in place to cater for individual differences within class groups. Inclusion implies conscious effort to devise programs and activities which will assist the student to be more part of the regular class group socially and academically. Therefore inclusion offers a greater challenge to teachers than any of the other terms. It is a relatively simple task to change the physical site of learning but a far more complex and demanding objective to devise ways of ‘including’ children with intellectual disabilities in a regular classroom in a way that ensures effective learning and a sense of belonging.
Terms which describe children include ‘mental retardation’ which refers to a significant measurable delay or lesser score on IQ tests than the age norms. The term ‘impairment’ is now more widely used for the abnormality in the way that organs or systems function. Intellectual impairment (in preference to mental retardation) refers to the brain being affected in such a way that scores on IQ test are lower than age norms. Three subsets of impairment usually referred to are mild, moderate and severe. The more severe the impairment the smaller the statistical group becomes (Foreman, 1996). Foreman (1996 p.16) refers to disability as, "the functional consequence of the impairment." For example a child may not see the blackboard effectively because of an eye problem. The ‘handicap’ is the "social or environmental consequence of the disability." In the case of the defective vision the child may not suffer a handicap with this disability due to a decision to wear corrective glasses or if the vision problem is more severe other steps may be taken to lessen the handicap. Foreman (1996, p.17) sums up these terms by pointing out that,
handicaps are often a function of the flexibility, resources and attitudes of the society in which the person is living. Schools are not often in a position where they can remove a student’s impairment or prevent a disability. However, schools are perfectly placed to do something about the handicapping effects of a student’s disability.
Marles (1986, cited in Fulcher, 1989, p.56) also summed up the differences in the terms well:
Impairment is a medical term for anatomical loss or loss of a bodily function. Disability is the measurable functional loss resulting from an impairment. Handicap is the social consequence caused by environmental and social conditions which prevent a person achieving the maximum potential a person seeks. Disabilities are what people can’t do ...
Fulcher (1989) argues that it is essential for educators to perceive the difference and the separation between impairment and disability. He points out that some ‘disabilities’ in schools such as learning disabilities may be socially constructed as often no known impairment can be shown to exist, although these impairments may be assumed by teachers and educational authorities. These types of ‘disabilities’ may be more related to curriculum, pedagogy or social factors than impairment (Abberley, 1987). Therefore it is important for teachers to not only ensure that disabilities are not ‘handicapping’ but also that disabilities are not constructed. This factor was recognised and qualified by the Integration in Victorian Education Report (1984, p.10, cited in Abberly).
The Review’s notion of problems in schooling is therefore not a new label or ‘named impairment’ but an attempt to identify system problems which handicap certain children in their educational experiences. This is not to deny, on the other hand, that certain impairments and their consequent disabilities may only be identifiable though highly expert (and in some instances yet to be developed techniques of) screening. What the review wishes to point out is the dangers of arbitrary labelling. Such labelling of children may serve to deflect attention from examining the disabling effects of educational services.
This report was visionary in predicting the major concern with inclusion which has been to develop classroom practices which lead to the delivery of effective educational services in both academic and social skills and to examine system wide practices which may be exclusive or handicapping to students with disabilities.
Social Justice
A shift in the philosophy of legislation and policies affecting students with disabilities has occurred due to societies changing concept of social justice. The progression from segregation to equality of opportunity and then to equity has often been portrayed as a historical linear progression (Theophanous, 1993 ; Rizvi & Lingard, 1992), however, it is clear that these concepts have different meanings to different political groups and that policies and aspirations for social justice may be positioned according to political climate and agendas. Segregation means that separate services are provided for children with intellectual disabilities and that they are kept physically away from children in regular schools. Equality of opportunity means that everyone is provided with the same opportunities and those students capable and interested in taking those opportunities are free to do so. Equity, on the other hand, means that sometimes individuals or groups require and are given extra support to compensate for starting at a disadvantage. In other words, unequal treatment may be appropriate for unequal groups.
Theophanous (1993) points out the difficulty in defining the concept of social justice in such a way that would satisfy all groups. Programs for children with intellectual disabilities can be successfully based on the notion that social justice means removing barriers that exist which may disadvantage individuals or groups. These barriers may be physical, such as a lack of resources or they may be pedagogical such as putting limits on the type of work that children are exposed to. For example, providing computer work that was solely based on ‘drill and practice’ activities to students with intellectual disabilities and providing computer work requiring higher order thinking skills to regular class members would represent a pedagogical barrier that students with intellectual disabilities would find difficult to overcome. These sentiments are echoed in the Educational Provision for Students with Disabilities : Policy Statement and Management Plan (1993 p.2) for the Queensland Department of Education which states that, "the focus is on recognition that all students can learn, and that education process requires flexibility of programs, organisational and structural arrangements to meet students needs" and that, "unequal treatment may be necessary for unequal groups in order to assist their development".
Rizvi and Kemmis (1987, p.212) argued that social justice concerns about education have been evident in society for some time.
Since the 1960's there has been widespread concern about the nature of educational inequalities and the social and educational conditions which generate and sustain inequalities and especially about the inequality of educational outcomes for disadvantaged people and groups as compared to their relatively advantaged counterparts.
Legislation and Policies
This concern for socially just practices has been reflected in Australian, American and British legislation and educational policy statements as well as United Nations policy statements. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO, 1994, cited in Foreman) has expressed the view that governments should adopt the policy that all students should be enrolled in their regular local school no matter what their disability. In the United States federal legislation, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975, cited in Foreman) mandates that all students with disabilities are provided with an educational service which is consistent across all the states. Great Britain also has legislation in place to specify the type of education received by students with disabilities although not as prescriptive as the American model (Education Act, 1981, cited in Foreman).
In Australia legislation is limited to Anti-Discrimination Acts which are specific to each state and therefore vary in their requirements and the Disability Discrimination Act (1992, cited in Foreman) which is Federal legislation and indirectly affects education. The Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act (1991, p.39, cited in Foreman) states that:
An educational authority must not discriminate -in failing to accept a person’s application for admission as a student; in the way in which a person’s application
is processed; or in arrangements for, or the criteria used in, deciding who should be offered admission as a student; or in the terms on which a person is admitted as a student.
This requirement, however is qualified by a statement of ‘unjustifiable hardship’ which has already been tested successfully in the courts. Dempsey and Foreman (1995), note that most Australian states have qualifying statements which have the potential to exclude students under certain conditions, but that they view inclusion as a desirable and likely outcome of modern educational practices. The Department of Education, Queensland Policy (1993, p.5) states that inclusive curriculum will:
value and respond to the educational needs and learning styles of particular individuals with disabilities; include and make visible within the curriculum the experiences of people with disabilities in Australian society, and question and challenge social contexts which inhibit full participation of particular groups or individuals with disabilities.
The Australian Capital Territory, Department of Education and Training Policy (1992, p.2, cited in Foreman) states that their department will
foster the integration of students with special needs into mainstream schools when this is in the best educational interests of the student and other students in the school and within the Department’s overall resource capacity.
The Northern Territory Department of Education Policy Statement (1994, p.2) states that:
wherever possible, special education services should be accessible to students at their local school, with disabled students being integrated into the normal school program to the maximum extent possible, consistent with their own interests and those of other students.
The Western Australian Ministry of Education Policy (1993, p.3) also argues that schools should ensure that "all students , irrespective of the degree of sensory, physical or intellectual disability, have the opportunity to be educated in the most educationally enhancing environment." The Department of Education and the Arts Policy, Tasmania (1994, p.1) suggests that :
students with a disability will attend a school setting which is as close as possible to the norms and patterns of schooling experienced by students and one that provides the least possible restriction on their right to lead a normal life
The Victorian Ministry of Education Policy of Integration (1994, p.9) discusses maintaining the present placement of children with disabilities in regular schools and increasing the participation of other children with disabilities in regular schools. It was maintained that,
a focus on the education system also follows from the Review’s belief that there should be a collective responsibility to enable regular classroom teachers to accept responsibility for all children, regardless of their impairment or disability.
The purpose of outlining the international and national trend in educational policies towards a greater degree of inclusion in regular schools is to illustrate the great need for research in the area. It is apparent that teachers and schools can expect increasing enrolment of students with disabilities and that programs seeking to more effectively ‘include’ children with intellectual disabilities should be carefully evaluated through the vehicle of rigorous research to provide teachers with much needed support. Stated policies cannot on their own lead to successful implementation. Marks (1993, p.25) argues that, "policies have only limited potential to bring about change. The production of the policy itself does not mean a resolution of the issues that give rise to it." The real change in delivery for children with disabilities will only come about if teachers accept that programs can be successfully implemented in a practical and typical school environment.
Factors Affecting Successful Inclusion Program Implementation
Different Social Justice Constructions
Some issues and factors associated with inclusion have the potential to affect program implementation in a positive or negative way. An understanding of these issues may be helpful in planning and implementing programs aimed at increasing social and academic outcomes for children with intellectual disabilities. These issues are mainly focussed on factors which have the potential to affect the attitudes of either the teachers, the subjects or the peer group.
Teachers’ views on social justice may affect their willingness to be fully and cooperatively involved with developing or implementing programs for children with disabilities. Rizvi and Lingard (1992, cited in Marks, 1993, p.28) state that social justice is an extremely complex and variable construction and that it, "does not have a single meaning - it represents discourses that are historically constituted and it is a site of conflicting and divergent political endeavours". This is evident even in relation to the concept of inclusion being socially just. Some arguments have been presented that inclusion represents an unjust practice aiming to hide difference and pretend that children are a homogeneous group who can be given the same programs and treatment (Branson and Millar, 1992 cited in Marks, 1993). Johnstone and Perry (1993, cited in Marks 1993, p.28) regard integration and inclusion "as a symptom and expression of the cultural hegemony of the dominant culture" and that these practices are designed "to fit persons with disabilities as if they were the same as students without disabilities".
A possible solution to counter this point of view is to develop special programs for children with intellectual disabilities that take account of the students abilities and disabilities rather than attempting to mask differences. These programs need to build on students’ individual interests and strengths and to gradually introduce components to develop areas such as communication skills and peer interaction (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1995). They also need to be implemented in classrooms with regular students rather than ‘pull out’ programs involving only children with intellectual disabilities. Programs involving children with disabilities in isolated groups may not only recognise difference but also emphasise and increase differences.
Economic Rationalism
Teachers, administrators and parents may believe that inclusion is an attempt at cost cutting by educational authorities. Marginson (1992, p.9) outlines the philosophy of economic rationalists which argues that, "in general, economic rationalists of all types make the claim that value, or utility, is always economic value. Within this framework no other purposes are admissible. Economic rationalism cannot take into account social goals". Porter (1990, p.31) points out that economic rationalism has, "the potential to stifle creative change in schools and the ability of schools to facilitate creative change in society". Fears in this regard are well founded when comparing the more generous human and material resources in special schools compared to those in regular primary schools. Marks (1993, p.31) commented on the Victorian Auditor General’s report on integration in 1992 which indicated an economic perspective to inclusion reforms. He argued that, "clearly, it was the perspective of the Auditor General that where it had not already occurred, economic imperatives should be given primacy over social justice. Despite the rhetoric of social justice both explicit and implicit in the 1984 integration policy document, the economic rationalist position has prevailed".
It may not be possible for teachers to immediately change system wide imperatives concerning resource allocation. However if adequately resourced programs can be implemented and quantitative and qualitative data can be extracted to demonstrate successful outcomes for children with disabilities, then schools have a better chance to argue for adequate resource levels to be put in place. Although adequate resourcing may be essential in the implementation of successful programs, it is important that schools do not develop what Slee (cited in Marks, 1993) calls a ‘cargo cult’ mentality towards inclusion where students are only thought of in terms of the amount of extra money that they bring into the school.
Underestimating the Capabilities of Children with Mild Intellectual Disabilities
An attitude may exist that children with intellectual disabilities are only capable of basic ‘drill and practice’ or remedial type skill development. These ideas are more fully explored in the section on learning theory but will be briefly examined as part of the understanding of implementation problems. Reid and Stone (1991, p.16) point out that early research often identified basic learning problems associated with students with disabilities and recommended repetition of simple exercises and that, "little attention was paid to the mental constructions and meaningfulness that result". They illustrate that more recent research has effectively challenged these notions and claim that, "decontextualized skills and exercises have no place." They describe more successful techniques as those which encourage active participation, collaboration and involving higher level thinking processes such as evaluation and reflection and that they should be ‘goal oriented’. They point to research by Vygotsky which suggests that lack of exposure to tasks involving more complex thinking skills may lead to developmental delays in all groups of children whether affected by disabilities or not. Knight (1994, p.42) claimed that,
if schools are to build a system that is inclusive to students with disabilities, one which integrates students to a formative learning process, and encourages the widest access to knowledge and decision making within the school and community, then a new framework for education is needed.
Knight (1994) emphasises that teaching for higher order problem solving is one of the most promising aspects of this new framework. Unfortunately many teachers were exposed to the earlier theories during teacher training and persist with strong beliefs in the value of repetitive drills for children with disabilities even though they have often shifted from this view in relation to regular class members. To counter this view it is imperative to demonstrate the practical application of these theories in classroom situations. The results and publishing of careful research on program implementation would be very helpful to teachers in deciding how different theoretical perspectives will influence their program designs.
Placement Options
The legislation in Queensland dictates that parents of children with disabilities have the primary say in deciding on placement options for their children. This choice is often informed by discussion with teachers and the school principal, although the parent is not obligated to seek or take the advice of the school. Typical placement options include a local special school which specialises in education for students with disabilities in a segregated environment or may include partial placement in the special school and other days in a local primary or secondary school. Within the regular school, options often vary from a ‘special’ class of students with disabilities to full ‘inclusion’ in a regular classroom or a mixture of both. Parents need to be informed by research about the successes and failures of various programs and placement options in order to make informed decisions. Publishing of case studies by Zigmond and Baker (1994 & 1995 cited in Mastopieri & Scuggs, 1995) led to widespread criticism of inclusion programs in the United States. Articles appeared with emotionally charged headings such as ‘Case Studies On Inclusion - Worst Fears Realised’ (Martin, 1995) and ‘Inclusion at the High Water Mark’ (Gerber, 1995).
Documenting the programs and the changing placement options led to an expression of fear that the regular school placement and programs offered were characterised by less attention to individual instruction, less evaluation of outcomes and a sub-ordination and degrading of the role of the special education specialists in schools. When writing about inclusion in reference to the case studies, Martin (1995, p.194) put forward the view that,
these reforms carry with their philosophical attractions a strong responsibility to measure their effectiveness, so that parents, children and those of us who pride ourselves as professionals can be more certain that we are, in fact, helping those we seek to help.
Gerber (1995, p.189) reported that,
in reviewing the studies by Zigmond and Baker, as well as other scant empirical data are available, I conclude that we are not witnessing the progress of the moment, but rather, peering into the past, and that the flood of rhetoric and reform supporting ‘inclusion’ may have already reached the high water mark.
The purpose of this is not to enter the debate for or against inclusion but to demonstrate that qualitative and quantitative data is necessary for all stakeholders, especially parents, children and teachers in deciding what constitutes effective placement and programs for children with intellectual disabilities. Demonstrations of both effective and ineffective programs need to be available in the educational and public arena so that debate and fine tuning of processes can be affected to ensure positive outcomes for children with disabilities.
This is crucial in an educational timeframe where increasing numbers of children with disabilities are placed in regular school environments (Dempsey & Foreman, 1995).
CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY
The use of computers in the classroom is often driven by availability of software and the pedagogical preferences of software developers rather than the informed choice of the classroom teacher. Software packages often have no relevance to current classroom programs and are often chosen on their stand alone merits and not judged according to the needs of the students or how they fit in with current classroom directions. Lepper and Gurner (1989, p.176) argue that, "a first goal for future research on educational computing is an increased appreciation of a reliance on theory. To date, a surprising majority of the research has been technology driven." Both classroom use of computers and research into its effects have focussed on the technology itself and the associated software and not on how the technology can be used to promote and enhance educational programs based on sound theory.
When theories of learning have been used by educators in relation to technology and children with intellectual disabilities, it has often been behaviourist in nature. Gerber (1994) and Sutton (1991) are among the many researchers who have pointed out that computers have been predominantly used for drill and practice activities, especially when computers have been used for children with intellectual disabilities. While drill and practice activities may be useful for certain types of training and learning they do not offer opportunities to structure computer learning so that children with intellectual disabilities have opportunities to develop higher order thinking skills and creative processes. Means and Knapp (1991, p.282) state that, "new evidence suggests that more advanced skills can - and should - be taught to those who are at a disadvantage in today’s schools." They extend their argument later by concluding that a different view of how children learn is possible,
by discarding skill hierarchies and by attempting to understand children’s competencies as constructed and evolving both within and outside school, researchers are developing models of intervention that start with what children know and expose them to explicit applications of what has traditionally been thought of as higher-order thinking (Means & Knapp, p.283).
By arguing this way these authors are promoting a theory of constructivism as a basis for developing higher order thinking skills among students with special needs.
What then, are the features of constructivism and how can this epistemology be used as a referent for the development of a successful computer based intervention for children with intellectual disabilities?
Research into constructivism has been increasing at an almost exponential rate in recent years (Osbourne,1996), so definitions are varied and at times at odds with each other. However, a common feature encompassed by all constructivists is that people construct their own knowledge and view of the world in a unique way within their own consciousness. Ritchie and Carr (1992, p.199) state that, "constructivists believe that learners actively construct their knowledge. Further, constructed knowledge will not be the same for each individual learner, thus there will be differences between learners..."
Sigel and Cocking (1977, cited in O’Loughlin, 1992, p.797) define constructivism ,
as a process of constructing, in effect, creating a concept which serves as a guideline against which objects or people can be gauged. During the course of interactions with objects, people, or events the individual constructs a reality of them... This mental construction then guides subsequent actions with the object or events.
Phillips (1995, p.5) describes constructivism as,
human knowledge, and the criteria and methods we use in our enquiries are all constructed. Furthermore, the bodies of knowledge available to the growing learner are themselves human constructs.
Saunders (1992, p.136) wrote that,
constructivism can be defined as that philosophical position which holds that any so-called reality is, in the most immediate and concrete sense, the mental construction of those who believe they have discovered and investigated it.
A major difference between constructivism and other theories such as realism is the perception of the nature of knowledge. Realists view knowledge as existing truths ready to discover and understand, whereas constructivists believe that knowledge is developed in their own minds by testing the viability of constructs. The resultant knowledge can not be regarded by the constructivist as the absolute truth but as the ‘most viable’ construct. Tobin (1993, p.2) argues that, "constructivism is an attempt to cut loose from the philosophical tradition that knowledge has to be a representation of reality, where reality is spelled with a capital and what is meant by it is a world prior to having been experienced. Truth in constructivism ... is replaced by viability." Constructivism has been criticised for denying the existence of reality (Osborne, 1996) when reality is not denied. Rather than a denial, constructivism argues that we have no way of perceiving reality apart from through our own individually constructed lenses.
Saunders (1992) listed some key points about constructivist learning theory which he felt would have implications on teaching strategies. When designing educational interventions involving technology, these would seem to be important points to consider :-
Meaning is constructed in the mind of the learner and as such cannot be transmitted directly from the teacher to the learner.
Schema (mental constructions) have been developed at great cognitive expense.
The student is the only one who can modify the schema - not the teacher.
These cognitive structures are sometimes resistant to change even in the light of observations or formal lessons/lectures to the contrary.
Modification can occur as a result of ‘disequilibration’ where experience do not agree with existing schema and a process of restructuring occurs.
These points are similar to those outlined by Savage and Duffy (1995, p.31) apart from a key point added due to the increasing awareness of the importance of social factors in the development of schema and that is :-
"Knowledge evolves through social negotiation and through the evaluation of the viability of individual understandings."
It is important to consider these points when designing interventions, in order to provide students with opportunities to engage in activities which will lead to the active construction of knowledge and to challenge student’s preconceived notions which may provide blocks to future learning. For example, in the pilot study (Anderson, 1995b) the student undertaking the program regarded handwritten communication in an extremely negative way but did not regard computer generated writing in the same way. Negative schemas had built up due to fine motor skill problems and the way handwritten activities had been presented.
Bransford and Vye (1989, p.193) argue that, "many traditional approaches to instruction do not help the students make the transition from ‘knowing that’ something is true to ‘knowing how’ to think, learn and solve problems." Savage and Duffy (1995) outlined some important ways in which the critical factors of constructivism could be considered in terms of classroom strategies. These classroom strategies could be incorporated in technology based programs for children with intellectual disabilities. Firstly they contend that all learning tasks should be tied to a larger task or problem. This is often achieved by tying the work to an overall theme. In the case of individual or small group interventions, the students can be encouraged to choose their own theme for study, thus ensuring that the work is based on the child’s interests. The teacher can also determine the child’s prior experience in this area and use this in planning to enhance further experiences. In this way it is easier to enable the child to see the purpose of the activities, rather than presenting the student with isolated activities that the teacher deems to be important for development. In the case of isolated activities, the teacher may be aware of a progression of skills towards a larger goal, but often the student isn’t. Students need to be able to see a clear purpose in the activities.
Supporting the learner to develop a sense of ownership of the overall task is also considered by Savage and Duffy (1995) to be an essential element in constructivist based programs. It is often assumed by teachers that students will automatically see the relevance of classroom tasks and value the assigned tasks. (Blumenfeld, Soloway, Marx, Krajcik, Guzdial and Palincsar, 1991 cited in Savage and Duffy, 1995). By allowing the student to choose the theme of study it should be easier to develop a sense of student ownership. The importance of sharing the skills and knowledge developed with others through strategies such as peer tutoring could be actively promoted by the teacher and negotiated with the students. Developing a sense of student ownership contributes to their sense of power over the learning process. O’Loughlin (1992, p.807) cautions that learning situations totally dominated by the teacher means that, "students will learn that their voices and their culture are not valued, and that school is not a place in which genuine construction and co-construction of meaning is valued." This is particularly relevant to programs designed for children with intellectual disabilities as they are often patronising in nature. Means and Knapp (1991, p.283) pointed out that, "the majority of efforts to provide at-risk students with compensatory education have tended to increase differences between the kind of instruction provided to the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’." These differences often involve the at-risk students in less say in their learning activities and more unrelated drill and practice type activities, no overall task or problem and little explanation or negotiation about the relevance of the activities and even less reflection on the tasks or thinking processes used.
Teachers endeavouring to follow constructivist principles often focus on ‘activity based’ learning rather than ‘passive’ learning. An alternative is to focus on whether the activity is meaningful to the student. ‘Hands on’ experiments in science can often be more meaningless and irrelevant to students than an inspiring lecture on a subject relevant to the student’s interests and goals. Saunders (1992, p.138) critiqued some forms of activity based science as failing to be perceived by students as authentic. He claims that, "when one queries students ... about what their purpose is, what they are learning about, or why they are conducting a particular procedure, they usually respond with, ‘I don’t know’ or ‘the teacher told us to do this." On the other hand Tobin (1993, p.8) defended the judicious use of direct teaching or lecturing by stating that the objectives of such activities,
were to foster new combinations of concepts. By talking to an audience I cannot give people new concepts, but I can prod them to combine in different ways the concepts they have associated with the words I am using. I can propose combinations they may not have thought of before or had no occasion to use before. I can perhaps generate some perturbation about conceptual structures.
Ensuring that the task includes authentic activities assists in developing a sense of relevance in students only if the students themselves understand how the different types of activities contribute to the overall goal. Savage and Duffy (1995, p.33) contend that, "an authentic learning environment is one in which the cognitive demands ... are consistent with the cognitive demands in the environment for which we are preparing the learner." Drill and practice or other forms of compensatory education may not prepare students with intellectual disabilities for the types of social discourses necessary for developing and sharing meaning. Authentic tasks include a wide range of teaching and learning modes and group structures rather than simply ‘activity based’ learning. When teachers engage students in a wide range of learning situations they should always consider the student’s prior knowledge, how the activity fits with the overall task or unit and whether the students will perceive the activity as relevant, useful and meaningful.
Savage and Duffy (1995, p.31) made a major point that teachers should, "design the task and the learning environment to reflect the complexity of the environment they should be able to function in at the end of learning." Using full productivity software such as ‘Microsoft Publisher’ and ‘Microsoft Powerpoint’ replicates the type of software used outside the bounds of the classroom far more than educational games or software developed to be especially easy to use in the classroom. Savage and Duffy (1995, p.31) claim that, "rather than simplifying the environment for the learner, we seek to support the learner working in a complex environment." Access to higher level software has also been identified as an equity issue. Sutton (1991) reviewed classroom technology research of the last twenty years and concluded that disadvantaged students had far less access to more sophisticated software than did more advantaged students. This may lead to the advantaged students feeling more comfortable in their post schooling use of computers and their computer dominated work environments. Snell and Browder (1986 cited in Gerber, 1994) found that children with intellectual disabilities had a lot of difficulty transferring or generalising skills learned in the classroom to tasks outside the classroom environment. Gerber (1994, p.26) argued that, "to maximise student’s independent functioning, school personnel should ensure that students’ in-school experiences are similar to those outside the school setting." Gerber implemented these ideas with special needs students and successfully introduced them to computer art programs commonly used in commercial environments.
Constructivist theory challenges teachers to present the students with opportunities for creative decision making and reflection on the processes used. Means and Knapp (1991) reported that students with disadvantages had far less opportunities to engage in higher order thinking or decision making than advantaged students. They felt that teachers of these groups often deliberately structure the learning activities and classroom environments to reduce the amount of decision making and thinking required by students. Strategies to achieve these ends included breaking down the tasks in very small components, doing most of the work for students, offering help too quickly and posing questions with only one possible answer. Evidence cited by Webb, Troper and Fall (1995) suggests that other students who constantly solve problems for less able students may impede the development of problem solving skills in disadvantaged students. Their research supported the view that students should be engaged in constructive activity after receiving help.
In contrast is the work of Gerber (1994) where children with intellectual disabilities were encouraged to make decisions and to use higher order thinking processes. She designed many of the activities using Bloom’s (1976) taxonomy to include analysis, synthesis and evaluation. In evaluation, the students were asked to discuss their favourite piece of computer art work and to justify the choices with opinions and feelings about the choices. Gerber (1994) gives many examples of how different thinking processes and tasks can integrated with the overall problem of mastering computer artwork.
Hand and Vance (1995, p.42) also stress the value of higher order thinking such as self-evaluation. They argue that
using a constructivist approach, students continually evaluate and assess their knowledge informally, in small groups and in front of the class. They do this by scrutinising, reflecting on and clarifying what they know and understand.
Means and Knapp (1991) warn teachers that they should not underestimate the capabilities of disadvantaged students, nor should they postpone the introduction of more challenging and interesting work.
Critics of Constructivism
Constructivism has been compared to a religious sect or cult by some critics and also likened to a powerful folktale (Phillips, 1995). These critics point out that within the ‘cult’ or ‘religion’ of constructivism resides many different sects who are often at odds with each other over details of how learning takes place and how knowledge is constructed. They argue that the popular appeal of images including students actively engaged in learning have created a mistrust of any alternative ideas and a failure to recognise its own limitations (Osbourne, 1996). Strongest criticisms of constructivism come from those who have problems with the idea that knowledge exists outside of the human mind and that it is ready to be discovered or shared with others.
They take offence at the constructivist stance of ‘viability’. Phillips (1995, p.12) concludes his critique by stating that his own view is that, "any defensible epistemology must recognise - not just pay lip service to - the fact that nature exerts considerable constraint over our knowledge-constructing activities, and allows us to detect (and eject) our errors about it." Osbourne (1996, p.57) claims that a failure to accept certain knowledge as ‘the truth’ means that students are "abandoned on the ocean of experience condemned to search for knowledge that is viable" and that "these theoretical fictions have an unfortunate habit of predicting objects, which due to advances in technology and instrumentation can increasingly be seen or sensed." Osbourne (1996) argues that a child’s notion that the sun moves around the earth satisfies the constructivist idea of ‘viability’ and that this illustrates the weakness of constructivism. Scientific knowledge did once proclaim that this was ‘truth’ and it has only been changed since human experience proved that this idea was no longer viable. This does not in any way compromise constructivist beliefs. However, it is an important factor that constructivist beliefs about the uncertainty of knowledge can present a problem to some educators and students.
Osbourne (1996, p.54) criticises constructivism for not distinguishing between new and old knowledge and that, "constructivist pedagogy often makes a fallacious connection between the manner in which new scientific knowledge is created and the manner in which scientific knowledge is learned." Critics of constructivism often assume that the pedagogy is based solely on hands on activity based learning. Osbourne (1996, p.68) clearly shows this when he claimed that, "the rejection of the role of telling in pedagogy only confirms the suspicion that constructivists have difficulty with the idea of objective knowledge." and "from whence come the ideas with which the individual is to interpret their sensory perceptions? Where, for instance is the role of analogy and metaphor which are vehicles for extending our thinking" (Osbourne, 1996, p. 64). Effective use of analogy and metaphor in constructivist based classrooms and the use of ‘telling’ and direct teaching have been outlined extensively by Yates and Chandler (1992) and Tobin (1993). Many concerns and criticisms of constructivism are based on a misunderstanding that it promotes the use of a narrow range of teaching methods. All modes of instruction can be supported in a constructivist learning environment provided that the previously elaborated classroom strategies are put into place.
Another common criticism of constructivism is that it either ignores or underplays the significance of social, cultural and political forces in the construction of meaning. O’Loughlin (1992, p.791) described constructivism as problematic because "it ignores the subjectivity of the learner and the socially and historically situated nature of knowing; it denies the essentially collaborative and social nature of meaning making". Phillips (1995, p.9) points out that Piaget ,"did not pay much attention to the internal politics of knowledge producing communities, or the effects of power differentials on the types of knowledge produced". These criticisms may be based on the earlier constructivist writings where a focus on individual development and individual construction of meaning left many unanswered questions about the social and cultural context in which learning took place.
This weakness in the constructivist argument led to the development of groups of writers labelled as ‘social constructivists’ and ‘radical constructivists’ who placed an emphasis on the importance of social and cultural factors in learning. Contemporary constructivists acknowledge the importance of the collaborative and cooperative nature of meaning making. Power differentials, however are often ignored and are left to groups such as feminist and postmodern writers to elaborate. Delpit (1988, cited in O’Loughlin 1992) is a feminist writer concerned with power structures who argues that constructivism does not address the issue of codes that are needed to gain access to power and how power relations are made explicit to or concealed from students. Strategies for overcoming existing power strategies are needed where these structures impede the construction of meaning by disadvantaged groups such as students with intellectual disabilities. For example in peer tutoring situations special needs students are often the tutees but rarely the tutors. When using computers disadvantaged students often use ‘drill and practice’ type programs as opposed to programs requiring creative and decision making skills.
Strengths of Constructivism
Even the harshest critics of constructivism acknowledge the positive benefits that constructivism offers to educators and students. Osbourne (1996) saw the strengths of constructivism as generating a tremendous amount of data about the nature of learning and that it has acted as a catalyst to the development of innovative methodology and has led to a greater awareness of the learner. Phillips (1995) concluded that constructivism has bought epistemological ideas to the forefront of discussions on learning and has contributed to more active participation of the learner in schools and a recognition that most constructivists have emphasised the social nature of learning. The contribution of constructivism to the development of effective use of group learning and social contexts has been documented in regard to computer learning (Silverman, 1995 , Peters & Lankshear, 1996) , science classrooms (Hand & Vance, 1995) and mathematics classrooms (Cobb, Yackel, & Wood, 1992).
Means and Knapp (1991), Gerber (1994) and Bransford and Vye (1989) all point out the contribution of constructivist theory to increasing opportunities for students to develop higher level thinking skills and creativity. It is critical that programs involving technology tap into the student’s higher level thinking processes and provide experiences which will develop skills in this area.
Some research suggests that teachers who hold constructivist beliefs and implement them in the classroom achieve more positive results in the classroom than do teachers with empiricist views. Hashweh’s (1996, p.47) research study hypothesized that,
teachers holding constructivist beliefs (a) are more likely to detect student alternative conceptions; (b) have a richer repertoire of teaching strategies; (c) use potentially more effective teaching strategies for inducing student conceptual change; (d) report more frequent use of effective teaching strategies and (e) highly valuate these teaching strategies compared with teachers holding empiricist beliefs.
These ideas were supported by the resultant research data and were in agreement with previous studies by Benson (1989, cited in Hashweh) and Gallagher (1991, cited in Hashweh). Hashweh (1996) was interested in determining if the results of the earlier studies could be replicated in a different cultural perspective, so conducted the study with Israeli subjects. Novak (1988) collected data to support the view that student’s holding constructivist beliefs performed better on work requiring abstract problem solving than did students who held empiricist views. He also found that students often had negative feelings towards work with a high percentage of rote learning compared to work that was more meaningful.
Constructivist theory offers a consistent referent to design strategies to engage special needs students in active, meaningful interactions with computers and other students. It offers a large research base to look for tested, successful strategies. It offers potential benefits to both students and teachers who adopt this epistemology and it places emphasis on a traditionally neglected component of special education - developing higher order thinking skills and creativity.
PEER TUTORING
Peer tutoring may be a valuable strategy in modern, technological contexts but this form of mediated instruction has a long history dating back to one room, one teacher classrooms and has been an evident component of education since its beginnings ( Niemiec, Sikorski, Walberg, 1989). Students helping each other seems to be a natural part of the learning process and peer tutoring can be viewed as a natural extension of this process. Peer tutoring has been defined in restrictive terms by Alberto and Troutman (1986, p.56 cited in Blackbourn & Blackbourn, 1993) as a process "in which a student functioning at a higher ability level in a particular subject gives help to a student with a lower ability level ", to a more open view by Maheady, Sacca and Harper (1988 p. 389) in which peer tutoring is described as occurring when, "students instruct other students."
Peer tutoring by more able students is the traditional view, although this strategy has been challenged by studies that have confirmed the ability of less able students to successfully taken on the role of tutor (Balenzano, Agte, McLaughlin & Howard, 1993; Marchand-Martella & Martella, 1993 ; Tabacek; McLaughlin & Howard, 1994). Benefits of being the tutor gained more acknowledgement when reciprocal peer tutoring became common practice in many schools throughout the world due to the seminal work by Fantuzzo and colleagues (1992). This process is described by Fantuzzo, King and Heller (1992, p.332) as a cooperative strategy where,
students alternate between student and teacher roles and follow a structured format to help team members make academic progress. Two or more students work together to prompt, teach, monitor, evaluate and encourage each other.
This process ensures that students who would not have had the opportunity to take on the role of tutor in traditional arrangements are automatically required to assume the tutor role.
Peer tutoring has also been defined in terms of economic rationalisation by Neimic, Sikorski and Walberg (1989, p.398) who claim that, "the idea that students could substitute for teachers, or otherwise assume some of their duties, seemed to have been revived in response to distressed economic conditions." In many American studies there seems to be a preoccupation with the cost effectiveness of various interventions and peer tutoring has been described as one of the most cost effective in terms of effect size compared to cost per student ( Levin, Glass & Meister, 1984 & Niemic, Sikorski & Walberg, 1989). This may be an positive important factor when using peer tutoring in conjunction with computer interventions as there is a significant cost involved in hardware and software acquisition in the latter.
Peer tutoring has also been described by Maheady, Mallette and Harper (1991 p.29) as a process particularly useful for difficult to teach students. They argue that educators should, "develop more powerful strategies that will allow us to educate students with wide-ranging abilities and backgrounds in integrated settings." They also describe variants of the peer tutoring process that have been labelled due to their particular set of procedures that students and teachers are expected to follow. These follow the tradition of reciprocal peer tutoring in that a structure is present which is used to engage students with each other in various ways.
In Classwide Peer Tutoring (CWPT) the class is divided into two competing teams and then further divided in tutoring pairs. They then follow a highly structured set of procedures for practice of functional academic skills. Daily point scoring and competition play an important and on-going part of the process. Like reciprocal peer tutoring (RPT), the pairs swap the role of tutor and tutee. Teachers are instructed to monitor the process and to award bonus points for good tutor and tutee behaviour. This process was specifically developed to cater for the needs of low achieving, minority or disadvantaged groups. The emphasis appears to be on drill and practice, functional skills and according to Greenwood, Delquadri and Hall (1989) the intervention has led to increases in spelling, reading and maths achievement. These findings were also replicated by a further study by Greenwood (1991).
Classwide Student Tutoring Teams (CSTT) follows a similar procedure but divides the class into small heterogeneous groups of 3 - 5 students who work together and teach each other specific tasks and are rewarded with points and are engaged in competition. In ‘Numbered Heads Together’ (Kagan, 1990) students are seated in small heterogeneous groups and swap roles in engaging the others in response to teacher led discussions or questions. Once again a tangible reward structure is an important component in the program.
Peer tutoring has also been described according to the age mix of the participants. Students from the same grade (usually the same class) may participate in Same-Age Peer Tutoring whereas Cross-Age peer tutoring refers to the practice of older students being used as tutors for younger students. In multi-age classrooms this may occur within the same classroom but often this method is used with children in different classes. Levin, Glass and Meister (1984) point out that Cross-Age Peer Tutoring closely resembles the first model of peer tutoring developed in one room schools long ago.
It is clear from this brief discussion that peer tutoring can take many forms and this has been a confounding issue for researchers investigating the effects of peer tutoring. It is important for educators to clearly define what type of peer tutoring is used and the steps or structure that constitutes the particular form of peer tutoring used. For the purpose of this study, peer tutoring will mean any activity where the subjects (students with intellectual disabilities) are attempting to instruct or help the regular class members. The particular steps that the subjects will be trained to use will be outlined in the methods section in a easy to follow and concise way.
Effects of Peer Tutoring
Meta-analysis of research studies in the area of peer-tutoring strongly supports the notion that this procedure has many beneficial effects for both regular students and particularly for disadvantaged and minority groups. Maloney (1995, p. 25) appealed to teachers to use this technique in assisting the inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities in regular schools. She argues that, "students with disabilities would have a better chance of success in the regular education setting if more of the strategies developed by special education, such as collaborative learning, peer tutoring .... became commonplace rather than showpieces." Studies support the view that peer tutoring can assist children with disabilities ( Balenzano, Agate & McLauglin 1993 & Blackbourn and Blackbourn, 1993 & Wacker & Berg, 1989) to adjust to regular educational settings, however, it is presumptuous to attribute the development of peer tutoring as a strategy to special schools. The advantages of peer tutoring as it was occurring in small schools had been described in the 1800s and included even advanced complex notions of how the tutor also benefits from the process before special education was implemented.
One effect of peer tutoring documented by many research studies is an increase in academic achievement by both the tutor and the tutee. A meta-analysis by Levin, Glass and Meister (1984) revealed average effect sizes for mathematics of 0.97 and reading of 0.48. Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes and Hodge (1995) investigated the effects of a peer tutoring program on reading and concluded that the students, " read more fluently, answered more questions correctly, and selected a greater number of correct maze responses than students in explicit teaching or control classrooms." They also reported increases in comprehension skills and interest in reading. One interesting finding over the longer term was that in order to sustain these increases, the treatment needed to be maintained or some of the advantages gained in academic achievement could be lost. This suggests that peer tutoring needs to be on-going in order to sustain academic achievement rather than being implemented as a short term intervention.
Numerous studies support the notion that peer tutoring is an effective strategy for students with disabilities. Blackbourn and Blackbourn (1993) reported that a student with intellectual disabilities was better able to complete his own mathematics assignments after being a tutor for a younger non-disabled student. Piggot, Fantuzzo and Clement (1986, p.311) examined a peer tutoring intervention with a disadvantaged group of students and reported that their academic achievement levels were "comparable to that of higher-functioning comparison groups." Shannahan, Topping and Bamford (1994) studied a peer tutoring program which focussed on reciprocal peer tutoring with special school children visiting a regular school and documented an increase in language development in the special school participants who were engaged as both tutors and tutees. Greenwood (1991) compared a peer tutoring program involving different groups that included a high risk, low socio-economic group; a low risk, higher socio-economic status group and control groups. All the groups worked in traditional classrooms from Years 1 - 3. The groups exposed to the peer tutoring intervention scored significantly higher than the other groups in reading, language and mathematics. Greenwood (1991) reported effect sizes ranging from 0.29 to 0.7. He summed up by pointing out that, "these were moderately large effects and were all educationally significant."
He also demonstrated that as the study covered the first three years of the student’s schooling, it represented 25% of total public schooling for those students involved in the study. Fantuzzo, King and Heller (1992) explained that cognitive elaboration theory (Slavin, 1989, cited in Fantuzzo, King and Heller) places great value on the process of explaining or teaching concepts in order to further develop and confirm the teacher/tutor’s ideas. This process of cognitive elaboration may explain the academic gains experienced by tutors in the peer tutoring process when tutors are forced to clarify their own concepts in order to explain them. A common feature of research studies in this field is the finding of improvements in various areas of academic achievement targeted by particular forms of peer tutoring.
Another effect frequently reported in the peer tutoring literature is a gain in social skills experienced by both the tutor and the tutees. This increase in social skills is often linked to a conviction by teachers, parents and students that some aspects of self-perception are enhanced in the subjects as a result. An important component of social skills is the ability of people to interact and communicate successfully with their peers. This is particularly relevant to students with intellectual or other disabilities. Perhaps the greatest challenge in respect to increasing positive social interaction would be in the area of autistic children. McGee, Almeida, Sulzer-Azaroff and Feldman (1992, p.124) investigated a peer tutoring program involving regular pre-school children and several autistic children. They reported increases in peer initiated activity between the groups of children of up to 30% over the time of the intervention and stated that, "peer incidental teaching was effective in promoting reciprocal interactions among children with autism and their peers."
Shanahan, Topping and Bamford (1994) reported anecdotal evidence of increases in positive social interaction when special school students spent time in a regular school and were involved in a reciprocal peer tutoring program. They also reported that the skills gained from this interaction were generalised into other situations such as in the playground.
Blackbourn and Blackbourn (1993) also reported a generalisation of social skills from a peer tutoring program that involved a student with moderate intellectual disabilities tutoring a Year One student. Staff reported an increase in the student’s willingness to help other students in different physical settings and in different subject areas other than in the area targeted for peer tutoring. Balenzano, Agte, McLauglin and Howard (1993) noted the phenomenon that children generalised the willingness to help others generated in the peer tutoring sessions to general play time and also employed the techniques practised during the intervention at other times and in other situations.
Many studies report an increase in positive interactions and a corresponding decrease in disruptive behaviour. Fantuzzo, Polite and Grayson (1990) argue that the use of reciprocal peer tutoring has been associated with a drop in incidence of disruptive behaviour. Whilst many students are chosen as peer tutors due to their cooperative natures in traditional peer tutoring, this has not been the case in reciprocal peer tutoring or many recent examples of peer tutoring programs. Tabacek, McLauglin and Howard (1994, p.61) selected subjects known for their high frequency of behaviour problems. They wrote that, "a marked increase in appropriate social behaviours and verbalisations was noted in students in the first dyad who experienced substantial behavioural problems prior to the study."
Lessening of behaviour disruptions during peer tutoring sessions may be attributable to an increase in on-task activity, thereby eliminating boredom and opportunities to disrupt as a consequence of not having enough to do. Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes and Hodge (1995) referred to research which suggests that little time is devoted to active reading or academic learning by children with learning disabilities in regular classrooms. They contend that these students are not actively engaged in learning or on-task for very long during the classroom day and that peer tutoring afforded opportunities for students to increase the time that they were actively engaged in learning. Monitoring of levels of on-task engagement of students from low socio-economic backgrounds by Greenwood (1991) revealed significant increases in on-task behaviour when peer tutoring was implemented. When teachers were trained to implement explicit teaching techniques for one group and others were trained to implement peer tutoring for another group, it was found that on-task activity and results were significantly superior in the peer tutoring group.
In studies where students with disabilities are involved with regular class peers, it is often reported that the regular class members improved in their attitude towards children with disabilities. This is an important factor where programs are designed to assist in the inclusion of special needs students in regular schools. McGee, Almeida, Sulzer-Azaroff and Feldman (1992) used peer and teacher ratings to demonstrate an improvement in attitudes towards the target group of autistic children after the peer tutoring intervention. This improvement in peer attitudes may in turn have an effect on some areas of self-concept of students with disabilities. Greenwood, Carta, and Hall (1988) documented evidence of improvement in areas of self-concept after peer tutoring programs.
Students and teachers are more likely to be motivated to use intervention techniques if they exhibit a positive response after exposure to these programs. Many students report positive responses to this intervention in post-study surveys. Fantuzzo, King and Heller p.339 (1992) stated a typical response that, "students and teachers rated the intervention highly." Maheady, Mallette and Harper (1991, p. 31) argued that, "we have found that such procedures not only work but are feasible to implement and are preferred by both teachers and students over traditional methods."
Cost of interventions has become a pertinent issue in ‘more for less’ economic rationalist climates and is presented as an important feature of North American research in this field of research. A major report commissioned by the United States government by the Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance in 1984 compared four major interventions :- peer tutoring, computer aided instruction, reducing class sizes and increasing the school day. In their conclusions to a lengthy report, which included meta-analysis of each area, they attributed peer tutoring with the greatest educational effect size per $100 spent than any other intervention by a significant margin. The closest intervention was computer aided instruction. Proponents of computer aided instruction such as ( Niemiec, Sikorski, Walberg, 1989) argue that the cost effectiveness of peer tutoring is often inflated by counting both the tutor and the tutee as beneficiaries of the intervention. They claim that if only the tutee is counted, then CAI becomes more cost effective. This seems to a dubious claim considering the amount of research supporting the view that the tutor also benefits.
Balenzano, Agte, McLaughlin and Howard (1993) describe some teacher criticisms of peer tutoring, an element which is sadly lacking in much of the literature on this subject. They cite noise levels, content preparation and scheduling as the worst features of some implementations of peer tutoring. These are all factors which can conceivably arise during the interventions with students with intellectual disabilities, especially if careful planning is not evident and an easy to follow structure is not present. The authors also point out a very positive feature of peer tutoring often ignored in the literature is the ease with which peer tutoring can be adapted to suit specific needs of target groups. A key factor in avoiding problems may be the use of carefully prepared steps that the tutor can be trained to use prior to the program’s commencement.
Many successful implementations of peer tutoring such as Reciprocal Peer Tutoring provide clear steps that the tutor uses to structure their tutoring efforts. They also include a training component where the tutors are trained and evaluated in their mastery of these steps.
In the pilot study (Anderson, 1995c), peer tutoring strategies were implemented in an ad hoc manner without clear steps given to assist the participant in her development of these skills. Despite this, anecdotal evidence supported the value of peer tutoring strategies during the intervention. Research, however supports the conclusion that peer tutoring is more effective if clear steps are provided to participants and that feedback be given to participants to modify and improve their performance. Peer tutoring used in computer interventions have rarely been studied where the tutor is at an intellectual disadvantage compared to the tutee. Fitz-Gibbon (1988) found that traditional peer tutoring can help special needs groups to achieve in the computer domain. Norris (1994) presented evidence that peer tutoring can assist special needs students to comprehend software packages. While these studies support peer tutoring, it is from the perspective of more able students supporting less able students. More research is needed to determine the effects of a reverse approach where less able students practice and conceptualise skills through tutoring others.
SELF-PERCEPTION
Defining
Studies which include a self-concept dimension now number in the tens of thousands with over ten thousand items in Psych Lit and thousands more listed in the ERIC database. Many interventions involving technology cite increased self-concept or self-esteem as an objective or outcome of the intervention, often with little evidence to support the findings. Some researchers contend that more work has been conducted in this field than in any other area of education and it has strong support in other fields such as psychology and philosophy (Bracken & Mills, 1994). Despite this interest, research prior to 1980 was often stridently criticised in literature reviews and by educators who were often confused by the multiplicity of terms which were used interchangeably. Hattie (1992) points out that ‘self-concept’ is a belief, and therefore can be wrong, and argues that the English language has limitations in describing and therefore defining exactly what we mean by the term. As a belief, it is impossible to construct a perfect definition for something that encompasses human feelings and self-perceptions and it should not be the intention of researchers to reify self-concept. However, simple broad definitions of self-concept have meant that many studies often utilise elements of self-perception to suit their own purpose and employ specific test items that have relevance only to their own investigation and often exhibit doubtful reliability and validity or generalisability. It is essential when planning interventions involving self-perception to clearly define the terms and to review appropriate instruments that measure as accurately as possible the defined concepts.
Marsh and Shavelson (1985, p.107) argued that past research involving self concept, "suffered from imprecise theoretical formulation of construct and inadequate measurement instruments." Harter (1982, p.198) lamented that, "constructs such as self-concept and self-esteem are vaguely defined at the conceptual level and therefore do not point to any clear operational definition. Nor is any rationale provided for the potpourri of empirical referents selected." Wylie (1974, 1979 cited in Watkins & Dhawan, 1989 p.556) in her reviews on self-concept , "attributed much of the blame for the poor quality of research to the basic problems of proliferation of poorly defined terms and the paucity of both theorising and the measuring instruments."
Vispoel (1995) claims that significant improvements were made in these areas in the 1980s and 1990s and attributes much of this positive change to the work of Shavelson, Hubner and Stanton (1976) and Marsh (1986) and their colleagues who developed compelling theoretical models for the construct. These models provided an understandable structure to view and examine the concept, without changing the underlying broad idea of what self-concept was.
Simple definitions of self concept follow notions such as , "a person’s perceptions of him or herself " (Marsh & Shavelson 1985, p.107) and "self-concept is the image people have of themselves. They are the composite beliefs they have about themselves - their physical, psychological, social and emotional characteristics, their aspirations and achievements" (Verma & Thakur 1993, p.37) , or "the self-concept is a dynamic mental structure that motivates, interprets, organises, mediates and regulates interpersonal behaviour and processes" (Akande, Ntshanga & Nyanhette, 1995, p.69). The basic idea contained in these broad definitions has not changed markedly since James (1890) wrote a chapter on self-concept in one of the first social science textbooks.
Shavelson and colleagues (1985) have refined the perceived structure of self-concept. Their own studies and others have supported the theoretical model that portrays self-concept as being multi-dimensional and hierarchical. This has created a common framework that instrumentation could be developed from and has been the basis for some of the more successful instruments developed in the late 80s and 90s. Among these instruments are :- Self Description Questionnaire (Marsh, Barnes, Cairns & Tidman, 1984); the Self Rating Scale (Fleming & Courtney, 1984); and the Self-Description Questionnaires 11 and 111 (Marsh, 1990).
Shavelson et al, (1985) list six main points associated with their model :-
1. It is multifaceted in that people categorise the vast amount of information about themselves ....
2. It is hierarchically organised, with perceptions of behaviour at the base moving to inferences about self in sub areas ...
3.General self-concept is stable, but as one descends the hierarchy, self-concept becomes increasingly situation specific and as a consequence less stable
4. Self-concept becomes increasingly multi-faceted as the individual moves from infancy to adulthood.
5. It has both a descriptive and an evaluative dimension ...
6. It can be differentiated from other constructs.
They have also developed a diagrammatic representation of their conceptualisation of self-concept.
This idea of a multi-dimensional self concept was initially criticised by researchers such as Coopersmith (1967) who argued that a general factor of self-concept was so dominant and persuasive that it would overwhelm any individual factors. He especially felt that this was true of younger people when he wrote that, "preadolescent children make little distinction about their worthiness in different areas of experience or, if such distinctions are made, they are made within the context of the over-all, general appraisal of worthiness that children have already made" (Coopersmith 1967, p. 6) However studies that have examined the multi-faceted nature of self concept have found support for the Shavelson model. Studies cited by Marsh and Shavelson (1985) to support this idea include Boersma and Chapman (1979); Dusek and Flaherty (1981); Fernandes and Courtney (1984); Fleming and Watts (1980); Harter (1982); Marsh, Parker and Smith (1983); Marsh, Relich and Smith (1983); Marsh, Smith and Barnes (1983); Michaels, Smith and Michaels (1975); Piers and Harris (1964); Shavelson and Bolus (1982); Shepard (1979) and Wylie (1979). Hamachek (1995) examined the relationship between academic self concept and general self concept and concluded that the two can be clearly differentiated and that academic self concept is more highly correlated with academic achievement than general self concept.
Although many studies support the idea of many individual and separate areas of self concept, there are on-going discussions about additions to the commonly accepted main domains of academic, physical and social self concepts. Main domains such as academic, physical and social self concept are frequently cited although other areas are added depending on the author’s particular interests such as Vispoel’s (1995) revision of the Shavelson model to include artistic domains. He claims that the artistic domain which includes dance, dramatic art, visual art and music cannot be adequately assimilated into the Shavelson model. Shavelson’s (1985) model includes academic self concept which has a lower hierarchy of English, history, maths and science and social self concept which includes relationships with peers and significant others; emotional self concept and physical self concept which is divided into physical ability and physical appearance. Coopersmith (1967) claims that these divisions are less pronounced in younger children have been echoed in more recent literature. Whereas he argued that the divisions were slight or non-existent in pre-adolescent people, some of the more recent literature argues that these divisions are dubious in much younger pre-school children and children with intellectual disabilities with a mental age below eight (Harter, 1982). Hattie (1992 p. 94) claimed that,
self-concept was reasonably diverse in young children, but became more multi-faceted and hierarchical in adolescents. Younger children are more likely to have, at the most, one general higher order factor, whereas adolescents may have several
Harter and Pike (1984, p.1981) investigated the assumption that children of younger ages or with intellectual disabilities have limited differentiation of factors and concluded that,
the structure of young childrens’ self - perceptions across these domains is less differentiated than the structure obtained for older children where we find that cognitive and physical skills clearly define separate factors. This developmental difference is consistent with findings indicating that the structure of the self becomes more differentiated with age.
Harter (1982) when discussing this in relation to children with intellectual disabilities stated that the distinctions between the domains were apparently not as clear with this group. To determine these results, Harter employed a simplistic, pictorial scale which may have, by its nature, predetermined a simple or slight differentiation between the factors.
Marsh, Craven and Debus (1991) examined the question of whether the test instruments contributed to the perception that young children have little separation in the factors and by simply changing the administration of the SDQ1 (Self Description Questionnaire 1) from written to verbal and found that this led to a significant increase in separation between the factors. They cautioned readers that any assumption that young children do not have clear differentiation may be premature. They also refuted the claim by Harter (1982) that general self concept (self-esteem) was non-existent in children under eight. Their conclusion contained two main points :- a) each of the eight factors examined by the SDQ1 were clearly defined in the early age group and b) general self concept was well developed in this early age group. They state that, " young children are much better able to differentiate among multiple dimensions than previously assumed." This is important in the context of this study which involves children with intellectual disabilities who have low mental ages, although most are above the mental age of eight.
Marsh, Craven and Debus (1991) attribute the advances in theory and practice with self-concept of older children as being enabled by better measurement instruments and procedures and speculate that these type of advances are needed in the area of younger children. These concerns are also relevant to the study of children with intellectual disabilities where self-esteem and differentiation between various self-concepts may be more clearly defined than previously thought. More appropriate instrumentation and the administration of instruments in oral form may lead to advances in our knowledge of this area.
Even though a good deal of consensus exists concerning the structure of self-concept in recent literature, there is still argument and confusion about the terms self-concept and self-esteem. In order to distinguish between the terms and their perceived sub-sets, researchers have developed vocabulary such as global self-concept; individual self-concepts; global self-esteem; trait self-esteem etc. Two schools of thought are dominant. One set of beliefs is that self-concept is descriptive and the self-esteem is evaluative and the other is that self-concepts are both descriptive and evaluative and refer to specific areas whereas self-esteem is a global idea that a person has about themselves.
Watkins and Dhawan (1989) argue strongly that self-esteem is evaluative and self-concept is descriptive. They support their point of view by citing studies conducted by George and Hope (1979, cited in Watkins and Dhawan); Hishiki (1979, cited in Watkins and Dhawan); Bogan (1988, cited in Watkins and Dhawan); Shepard (1979, cited in Watkins and Dhawan, cited in Watkins and Dhawan) and Greenwald, Bellezza and Banaji (1988, cited in Watkins and Dhawan). Evidence of studies that they have conducted with Indian and Filipino students indicate that the distinction between self-description and self-evaluation may be stronger in Asian subjects than Western ones. This evidence is also supported by other cross-cultural studies (Hishiki 1979, George & Hope, 1979 cited in Watkins and Dhawan). They explain that this may reflect significant cultural differences between the two groups such as Western societies’ concern for individuality and opposed to Asian emphasis on group welfare. Obiakor and Algozzine (1994, p. 125) in a recent article designed for educators of children with special needs stated that, "the contemporary view conceptualises self-concept as an individual’s repertoire of self-descriptive behaviour ... many researchers have attempted to approach self-concept from this perspective." These authors express a desire to be more specific in the definitions of these constructs. Watkins and Dhawan (1989, p.560) wrote that, "many of the theorists at the forefront of current research into the self system wish to differentiate between the constructs of self-esteem and self-concept". Obiator and Algozine (1994, p.125) lament that, "self-concept has been a misused and misunderstood construct that has been defined, assessed, and interpreted in unproductive ways."
Studies supporting the notion that self-description and self-evaluation are empirically the same include Marsh & Shavelson (1985); Shavelson and Bolus (1982) and Burnett (1994). Burnett (1994, p.170) distinguishes between the two constructs on the following basis,
self-concept, then, can be viewed as having a cognitive/thought orientation that encompasses both descriptive and evaluative/comparative beliefs about one’s characteristics, whereas self-esteem has a global cognitive and affective/feeling orientation that focuses on how an individual feels about himself- or herself as a person.
Burnett’s (1994, p.170) study of 957 students supported the idea that self-description and self-evaluation could not be convincingly separated according to empirical evidence and concluded that, "the finding of a mean correlation of 0.62 between the two types of statements supports the perspective held by Shavelson et al. (1976) that self-description and self-evaluation are empirically indistinguishable." Reservations are expressed by Burnett (1994) concerning school self -concept where he reports conflicting data. Watkins and Dhawan (1989, p. 561) also express concerns about some of their results in supporting a clear delineation between the concepts. "We do not claim that the evidence presented here is conclusive. In particular, we are aware of the validity problems which behest relatively unstructured instruments."
The empirical evidence is quite compelling that if a distinction can be found between self-evaluation and self-description, then this distinction is slight, even in cross-cultural studies. Since the difference, if any, is relatively minor, it would not serve any useful purpose to differentiate between the two for this study. This study when referring to self-concept will be examining clearly defined, separate characteristics of the subjects and self-esteem will refer to global feelings that an individual holds about themselves.
This study will focus on self-concepts concerning communication; academic achievement and peer relations and self-esteem. Interventions include steps to specifically engage the subjects in activities which seek to increase their participation in these domains.
Communication Self-Concept
Group computer work is often regarded as an means of increasing communication between students and claims have been made that this in turn leads to improvements in self-esteem, especially when students are engaged in tasks that lead to success. Computer curriculum objectives increasingly include social goals as the norm. This however, has been a relatively recent phenomenon. Calsyn, Quicke and Harris (1980, p.41) wrote that, "although the school’s role in the socialisation of children has been recognised for a long time, schools have only recently developed specific socialisation goals and designed curricula to achieve these goals." Interestingly, Akande, Ntshanga and Nyanhette (1991, p.71) wrote, "despite the fact that the school’s role in the socialisation of children has been recognised for a long time, schools have only recently developed specific socialisation goals and designed curricula to achieve these goals. " These are remarkably similar sentiments and words considering the 14 year time lapse! Calsyn et al (1980) studied 178 students fourth and fifth grade students whereas Akande et al (1994) studied 139 fourth and fifth grade students. The results of these American and Zimbabwean studies both supported the conclusion that although communication skill increases can be empirically determined after relatively short interventions, no such increases can be found in the area of self-esteem. Calsyn et el (1980) reported mixed results in their literature review. Whereas Eldridge, Barcikowski and Witmer (1973, cited in Calsyn et al); Altman and Firness (1973, cited in Calsyn et al) and Pukey (1969, cited in Calsyn et al) found no difference in the self-esteem despite measurable increases in communication ability. Schoolman, Ford and Busk (1973, cited in Calsyn et al) and Oval and Hales (1972, cited in Calsyn et al) reported increases in self-esteem after improving communication skills. No major difference in the characteristics of the subjects or the length of treatment could be found to explain this mixed pattern of results. Calsyn et al (1980) hypothesised that they could increase both self-esteem and communication skills but failed to produce a measurable gain in self-esteem. They concluded that greater teacher involvement in the process of following through and reinforcing the skills learnt may lead to better results. Unfortunately the later study did not try to implement this idea but merely replicated the earlier study with different subjects. This supports the idea that it may be unrealistic to expect increases in student’s self-esteem after computer interventions, even though this is a common stated objective of many educational programs involving computers. It may be more realistic to look at the effect of computer interventions on individual self-concept areas such as computer self-concept or social self-concept areas.
An increase in communication skills could be directed towards improving two areas :- peer status and friendships. Vandal and Hembree (1994 p.461) noted that , "children who are either rejected or neglected by their peers have poorer self-concepts than popular or average children." They also documented the contribution that good peer status and friendships have on other variables such as academic achievement and classroom behaviour. The results of their study of 326 third grade students lend support to the importance of peer status and friendships. Investigation into the links between effective communication and peer status and friendships with intellectually disabled students would be beneficial. In the pilot study, (Anderson, 1995b) a student with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities was encouraged to use increases in communication to improve peer status and friendships with very positive results. This type of intervention involves the student with disabilities with other regular