integrating computer based instruction and peer tutoring

8/12/2019 Integrating Computer Based Instruction and Peer Tutoring

1/5

T E H N O L O G Yili iil

Integrating Computer-Based Instructionand Peer Tutoring

REBECCAG. SMITH

The integration of technologyinto the curriculum will be a challenge for teachers in the diverseclassrooms of the 21st century. Tech-nological integrationrefers to the useof technology as an alternative instructional intervention to achievespecific individual, as well as class-wide, goals (Edyburn, 1992; Prick-ett, Higgins, & Boone, 1994). Students in diverse classrooms will reapthe benefits of integration, not onlyin becoming informed travelers onthe information highway, but also byhaving the technological tools to enhance and extend their skills in reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Teachers are achieving technological integration by using more computer-based instruction (CBI) intheir classrooms, due to the increased availability of less expensivehardware and software (Behrman,1994; Ellsworth, 1994). CBI is defined as instruction in which the computer acts as the teacher by presenting new information or providingguided practice (Lewis, 1993). Compared to only a few years ago, whenthere was one computer for every30 students, a recent study by theOffice of Technology Assessmentrevealed an average of one computer for every 9 students (Bruder,1993; Cooley, 1996). Thi s promisingfact makes CBI an appealing possibility as an instructional alternative.

As with any innovation in curriculum and instruction, teachers mustbe aware of and plan for a variety of

problems and promises concerningtechnological integration, in particular, CBI. The following sectionsaddress some of the issues gleanedfrom the current and growing research base on CBI in the diverseclassroom. This article describessome of the problems encounteredby teachers and students in the process of technological integration,presents a discussion of promisinginstructional software design features, and provides an example of aninstructional arrangementClass-wide Peer Tutoring (CWPT)thatfacilitates CBI as an alternative intervention.

P ROBLE M S :T E A C H E R S N E E D S AND

S T U D E N T S S K I L L SThe successful integration of CBI

as an instructional alternative necessitates teacher training, planning,and role flexibility, and the use of aninstructional arrangement to facilitate integration. Special educatorsneed training to foster their skills inchoosing and using appropriate software for CBI; however, only 2% ofmost school districts' technologybudgets are set aside for technological inservice training (Bruder,1993; Mevarech, Siller, & Fine,1991).Training is needed in how toselect and critique software as well ashow to match software to the instructional objectives (IO) containedin a student's Individualized Educa

tion Program (IEP). For instance,specific software is designed fortutorials, drill and practice, simulations, and games (Lewis, 1993).Teachers must be able to decidewhich software programs are appropriate for which students.Teachers also need time for planning computer-based lessons thatfocus on appropriate matches between the lessons' instructionalobjectives and computer software,and they need assistance in jugglingthe multiple tasks necessary for integrating CBI effectively into theclassroom. Some of these tasks concern the teacher's role as directinstructor, learning facilitator, classroom manager, schedule maker, andgeneral trouble-shooter.In addition, there are student-centered concerns. For example, software programs with complex menuchoices or designs that use open-ended problems are not practical forstudents with reading and languagedisabilities (Okolo, Bahr, & Rieth,1993). Such students need moreteacher-guided, learner-centered systems and a supportive social setting(Papert, 1980).

P R O M I S I N G C O M P O N E N T :S E LE CTI ON OF

I NS TRUCTI ONALS OFTWARE FE ATURE S

Successful integration of CBI inthe classroom depends on selecting

INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL AND CLINIC VOL. 33, No. 1. SEPTEMBER 1997 PP.65-69) 65


2/5

appropriate instructional softwarewith design features that foster positive learning outcomes. Promisinginstructional features of software forstudents with disabilities include(a) selection of performance goalsin math skills games, (b) review ofskills, and (c) direct instruction inproblem-solving strategies. Additional positive outcomes indicatedby research include increased timeon task and better motivation. Furthermore, use of technological toolssuch as databases and problem-solving software has resulted in anincrease in the development ofhigher-order thinking skills (Fuchs,Bahr, & Rieth, 1989; Mastropieri,Scruggs, & Shiah, 1991; Okoloet al., 1993). CBI is a proven andeffective tool for students with disabilities at all stages of learning. Forinstance, tutorial and drill-and-practice software, as well as organizational and productivity tools, facilitate learning at the acquisition,fluency, maintenance, and generalization stages (Behrman, 1994;Rivera, Erin, Lock, Allen, & Resta,in press). The use of CBI complements instructional principles suchas acquiring automaticity for mathfacts (Vockell, 1990). Sources ofsoftware information are provided inAppendix A.

After selecting appropriate instructional software, teachers needto plan for CBI integration in theclassroom. This includes preparing students to assume differentteacher roles and to work collabo

ratively. For example, teachers cancooperate and share work roles inthe classroom with students (Lentall& Ferkis, 1993) when CBI is combined with a promising instructionalarrangement such as CWPT, whichis supported by an impressive research base (Greenwood, Delquadri,& Carta, 1988).

P R O M I S I N G C O M P O N E N T :W T A N D CBI

Peer tutoring isdefined as the pairing of two students (a dyad)one ofwhom is competent in a skill or

procedure and one who is lesscompetentto enhance and extendacademic instruction (Mercer, 1992).Effective peer tutoring arrangements produce higher rates of academic response when comparedwith teacher-only mediated instruction (Greenwood et al., 1987). Several studies have demonstrated student gains in the use of thinkingstrategies, positive attitudes towardlearning, and oral responses in classes where peer tutoring has beenimplemented (Beirne-Smith, 1991;Fantuzzo, King, & Heller, 1992;Starr, 1991). Integrating CBI intoCWPT not only facilitates academicresponding and learning, it fostersself-esteem, social development, andproblem-solving skills (Light &Mevarech, 1992). Successful integration is direcdy related to planning,training, practice, and classroommanagement. The rest of this articleoffers a step-by-step organizationalplan for integration of an adaptedversion of CWPT (Greenwoodet al., 1988) and CBI, using mathematics as the curricular focus andMath Blaster (Davidson & Associates, 1990) as the chosen software.

Step 1: PlanningPlanning, the most essential com

ponent of integrating CBI intoCWPT, involves five activity areas.

1. Teachers must determine theinstructional objective(s) of the software, and if they are consistent withthe curriculum and students' needs.For example, Math Blaster presentsincreasing skill levels in arithmeticcomputation. (Some of the positivedesign features and possible instructional objectives of Math Blaster arepresented in Appendix B.)

2. Teachers need to determine ifthe software is compatible withavailable classroom hardware. Forexample, the computers must havethe required amount of memory torun a particular piece of software.

3. Teachers must review the software manual to evaluate specific design features (e.g., amount of reasoning involved). This should befollowed by a session or two at the

computer to discover any potentialproblems with the hardware or software.

4. Teachers need to map out aplan for pairing students for CWPT.Initially, it is best to pair average-to-above-average math students withlower achievers or students with learning problems. If personality clashesoccur, adjustments can be made, butdyads (CWPT pairs) need to be together for at least 4 weeks to allowstudents to work out problems.

5. Teachers need to prepare contracts, point sheets, and a posterillustrating tutor/tutee roles (seeAppendix C) at the computer. Thecontracts serve two functions: helping the teacher keep track of who ispaired with whom, and remindingstudents that their roles are seriousbusiness. Point sheets for each dyadcan be stapled to cardboard andposted at each computer workstationor in a central location. In additionto indicating weekly rewards, thepoint sheets remind students of theirpartnership. Each day that studentpairs work together at the computer,they may award each other 1 pointby circling a number on the sheet atthe end of each work session for(a) good tutoring skills (e.g., tutorpraised his or her tutee), (b) completed activities within a certain timeframe, and (c) agreement on andsuccessful completion of a problem-solving activity at the conclusion ofthe math facts activity. The teacheralso may award points when outstanding behaviors are observed.Two different colored markers canbe used for circling pointsone forthe peer tutoring partners and onefor the teacher. Students should becautioned not to abuse the point system. A poster can serve as a visual aidto remind students of their roles andthe use of the point system.

Step 2: T raini ngand Practicing

Step 2 involves the training oftutors and practice time at the computers for pairs. During a specialclassroom session, the teacher should

66 INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL AND CLINIC


3/5

explain to the tutors their role inassisting their partners at the computer. Tutors can read directions,point out strategies such as counting up in addition, problem solvewith the tutee to figure out how toplay strategy games used in MathBlaster, and praise tutees for correctanswers. Tutors must be cautionednot to use the keyboard or do thework for the tutee, but to watch,point out errors, and encourage andpraise tutees.

The teachers should practice withtutors at the computer by modelingthe tutee roles with various students.He or she should explain and/ormodel the use of the point sheets,rules, and tutor/tutee roles. Afterthis is completed, the teacher canpass out contracts, explaining thatthese agreements are binding andimportant for the math businessahead. After contracts are signed andpairs are comfortable with their rolesand rules, a practice run can be doneat the computers. This may consistof exploring the software initiallyand becoming familiar with all theactivities offered in Math Blaster,including how to type in tutor/tutees' names and choose an appropriate math level. After a review oftutor/tutee roles, the teacher canpass out point sheets and have thestudents practice playing one ofMath Blaster's games. Each pairshould be monitored and rewarded iftutors remember to praise, encourage, and problem solve appropriately. Some pairs may need moretime and direct instruction on usingthe software. If this is necessary, theteacher should explain to the tutorthat he or she is modeling the tutor'srole for the next CWPT session.Partner problem solving should alsobe modeled.

Step 3: On goi ng Classroo mManagementAfter pairs understand their roles,

the point sheets, and the softwareinstructions, CWPT can begin. A setof signals (one or two fingers raised)needs to be planned so that one or

both partners can request help, ifneeded. Students should be encouraged to discuss activities and problem solve aloud; this allows foractive learning and participation.Besides points, younger childrenmay need the added reinforcementof being allowed to color sections ofa picture sheet each day CWPT isused. A reward ceremony on Fridaysis an excellent way to encouragetutors to uphold their contracts.

S U M M A R YStudents with learning problems

needthe kind of structure embeddedin CWPT (Miller, Mercer, & Dillon, 1992). The arrangement allowsfor (a) demonstration and modelingby tutors (and teachers), (b) verbalization of processes, and (c) guidedand independent practice. Integrating CBI and CWPT gives studentsa third partner: the computer. Withcareful planning, training, practice,and ongoing classroom management, skills in technology can beextended to other skills such asarithmetic computation, problemsolving, and workplace cooperation. The combination of CBI andCWPT offers a structured learningenvironment that encourages activestudent participation. The problemsand promises of integrating CBI in adiverse classroom can be shared byeager peer tutors, who becomeextensions of the teacher and partners in technology.

Persons interested in submittingmate-rial for Technology Tips should contactDiane Pedrotty Bryant, University ofTexas at Austin, Special Education Dept,SZB 306, Austin, TX 78712. TheAuthor Guidelines provide a descriptionof content and ormat or thisdepartment.

A B O U T THE AUT HORebecc G. Smithis a doctoral candidate

atthe Universityof Texasat Austin in specialeducation.She is currently working on a dissertation focusing on inservice training of

special educators via interactive televisiontechnology (ITV). She taught special andgeneral education math classes for 20 years.Address:Rebecca G. Smith, College of Education,Department of Special Education andRehabili tation, University of Texas, Austin,TX78712-1290.

REFERENCESBehrman,M. (1994). Assistive technology for

studentswith mild disabilities.Interventionin SchoolandClinic,30, 70-83.

Beirne-Smith, M. (1991). Peer tutoring inarithmeticfor children with learning disabilities.ExceptionalChildren,57, 330-337.

Binder, I. (1993). Technology in the USA: Aneducational perspective.Electronic Learn-ing, 12 2),20-25.

Cooley, V E. (1996). Technology: Buildingsuccess through teacher empowerment.EducationalHorizons,75(2), 73-77.

Davidson & Associates. (1990).Math blasterTorrance,CA: Author.

Edyburn , D. L. (1992). Technology: Aligningtechnology tools with powerful instructional interventions. LD Eorum, 18 1),31-35.

Ellsworth,N .J . (1994). Applications of technologyfor students with learn ing disabilities: A survey of New York city schools.LDForum,19 4),21-24.

Fantuzzo, J. W., King, J. A., & Heller, L. R.(1992).Effects of reciprocal peer tutoringonmathematics and school adjustment: Acomponent analysis.Journalof EducationalPsychology, 84,331-339.

Fuchs, L. S., Bahr, CM . , & Rieth, H.J .(1989).Effects of goal structures and performance contingencies on the mathperformanceof adolescents with learningdisabilities. Journalof Learning Disabilities,22 ,554-560.

Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri ,J. C , & Carta,J.J. (1988).Classwidepeer tutoring.DelrayBeach, FL: Education Achievement Systems.

Greenwood, C. R., Dinwiddie, G , Bailey, V.,Carta, J., Dorsey, D., Kohler, E, Nelson,C , Rothols, D., & Shulte, D. (1987). Fieldreplication of classwide peer tutoring.Journal of pplied BehaviorAnalysis,20 2),151-160.

Lentall ,S. S., & Ferkis, M. A. (1993). Mathematical problem solving for youth withA D H D ,with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16 1),6-18.

Lewis,R. B. (1993).Special education technoogy:Classroom applications. Pacific GrovCA :Author.

Light , P. H., & Meva rech, L. R. (1992).ooperatinglearning with compute rs: An

introduction. Learning and Instruction,2,155-159.

VOL. 33. No. 1, SEPTEMBER 997 67


4/5

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Shiah,S. (1991). Mathematics instruction forlearning disabled students: A review ofresearch. LearningDisabilities Research andPractice, 6,89-98 .

Mercer, C. (1992).Students w ith learning dis-abilities (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Mevarech, L., Siller, O., & Fine, D. (1991).Learning with computers in small groups:Cognitive and affective outcomes.JournalofEducationalComputing Research, 7,233243.

Miller, S. P., Mercer, C . D. , & Dillon, A. S.(1992). CSA: Acquiring and retaining m ath

skills. Intervention in Schooland Clinic, 28,105-110.

Okolo , C. M., Bahr, C M . , & Rieth , H. J .(1993). A retrospective view of computer-based instruction. Journal ofSpecialEdu-cation Technology, 12(1), 1-27.

Papert, S. (1980).Mindstorms: C hildren, compu-ters, and powerful ideas. New York: VikingPress.

Prickett , E. M., H iggins, K., & Boone, R.(1994). Technology for learning . . . notlearning about technology. TeachingExceptionalChildren,26(4), 56 -60.

Rivera, D. P., Erin, J., Lock, R., Allen, J., &Resta, P. (in press). Infusing assistive technology into a teacher training program inlearning disabilities. Journal of LearningDisabilities.

Starr, B.C. (1991). Linking students andclasses: Strategies for improving learningand thinking. Community/Junior CollegeJournal, 15,427-438 .

Vockell, E. L. (1990). Instructional principlesbehind computer use . The ComputingTeacher, 18 , 10-15.

APPENDIX A: Sources of Softw are InformationNew Paradigms in Educatione -m a i l : NE W E DU-L @ US C VM .B IT NE T

(Discusses the influences of technology on teaching, learning,and the concept of education)Academic Software Developmente -m a i l : AC S OF T -L @ W UVM D.B IT NE T(Discusses a wide range of topics related to the developmentof instructional software for computers)

Providing Accomplishments for Students With DisabilitiesEDUCOM&IBM sources (search engines)Note. Adapted from Tools for Teaching, by B. G. Davis, 1993, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. Copyr ight 1993 by Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Appendix B: Design Features and Instructional ObjectivesMath Blaster (Davidson)

Menu choicesSubjects: (Addition, subtraction, multiplication anddivision, fractions, decimals, percentages, review)Levels: Ever-increasing from o ne-digit sums tofour-digit sums with regroupingctivities(a) Rocket Launcher (Student types an answer andreceives feedback.)(b) Trash Zapper (Student must type the missingpart of a number sentence such as

1 8 = 10.)

(c) Recycler (Student makes corrections on severalnumber sentences by moving a character on thescreen to shift a colum n of numb ers.)(d) Math Blaster (Student fires at response to mathproblem.)dditional Featuresscoreboard after two activitiesa completion certificate to printcreate-a-problem set for teachersprinted testsstudent files

Note.Adapted from Math Blaster, by Davidson & Associates, 1990, Torrance, CA: Author. Copyright 1990 by Davidson & Associates.68 INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL AND CLINIC


5/5

Appendix C: Math PT Points and Students Roles

Name:

113253749617385971 91211331451571691811932 5217229241253265277289

214263856274869811122134146158171821942 62182324225426627829

315273951637587991111231351471591711831952 7219231243255267279291

4162841526476881112124136148161721841962 82223224425626828292

Math PT Points

Date:

51729415365891 11131251371491611731851972 9221233245257269281293

61834254667891 2114126138151621741861982122223424625827282294

7193143556779911 3115127139151163175187199211223235247259271283295

82324456688921 411612814152164176188221222423624826272284296

9213345576981931 51171291411531651771892 1213225237249261273285297

122344658782941 611813142154166178192 221422623825262274286298

11233547597183951 71191311431551671791912 3215227239251263275287299

1224364867284961 8121321441561688 I9 2 j2 4216228242522642762883

Students RolesTutor Tutee

Read the directions aloud.Work through the problem stepsactivity together out loud.Mark 2 points on the po int sheet if youand the tutee agree to a final answer.Correc t errors by modeling a strategy andcorrect answer.Award tutee 1 poin t after she or he m akescorrections and agreement is reached.Signal for help/feedback as needed.

Listen as the tutor reads the directions. Work through the steps of the problem

with the tutor. If you make an error, practice until agree

ment is reached.

V O L 3 3 , N o . I . S E P T E M B E R 1997 69

integrating computer based instruction and peer tutoring

Documents