Student and Teacher Acceptability of Three Math Computer-Assisted Instruction Programs Karyn N. Erkfritz -Gay, Ph.D.

1. In terms of the intervention being easy to implement, interventions that rely on computers to deliver supplemental instruction may be relatively easy for teachers to implement. However, in order for computer interventions to be feasible, it would require schools to have computers. In addition, teachers would need to have time as part of their daily class schedule for students to use the computers. Lentz, Allen, and Ehrhardt (1996) stated that “the more complex and time-consuming the intervention, the less likely it will be implemented as intended” (p. 129). Since computers can be programmed to encompass the intervention components desired (e.g., length of time, number of trials, feedback delivered, and pacing), teachers are only required to monitor and ensure that the student uses the program the prescribed number of times. This may elicit high levels of integrity as the CAI interventions are not complex for teachers to implement. Further, interventions involving computers may elicit higher levels of acceptability given the decreased response effort required by teachers. In the current study, treatment integrity was assessed by calculating the percentage of students who completed all 10 computer program trials and calculating the mean number of trials completed. Treatment acceptability was assessed through rating forms completed by students and teachers. Student and Teacher Acceptability of Three Math Computer-Assisted Instruction Programs KarynN. Erkfritz-Gay, Ph.D. & Gary L. Cates, Ph.D. ABSTRACT/INTRODUCTION RESULTS: COMPUTER ASSISTED INSTRUCTION RESULTS: TEACHER ACCEPTABILITY Rank Order Preferences for Teacher Acceptability Rating Form ________________________________________________________________ Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3 Teacher 4 Teacher 5 ________________________________________________________________ Question 1 TDP 2 2 1 1 2 CTD 1 1 2 2 1 CCC 3 3 3 3 3 Question 2 TDP 2 1 1 1 2 CTD 1 1 2 2 1 CCC - 3 3 3 3 Question 3 TDP - - 1 1 2 CTD - - 2 2 1 CCC - - 3 3 3 Question 4 TDP - - 1 1 1 CTD - - 2 2 2 CCC - - 3 3 3 Question 5 TDP - 2 1 1 2 CTD - 1 2 2 1 CCC - 3 3 3 3 Question 6 TDP - 2 1 1 1 CTD - 1 2 2 2 CCC - 3 3 3 3 Question 7 TDP - 1 1 1 1 CTD - 2 2 2 2 CCC - 3 3 3 3 Question 8 TDP - 1 1 1 2 CTD - 2 2 2 1 CCC - 3 3 3 3 Question 9 TDP - 1 1 1 1 CTD - 2 2 2 2 CCC - 3 3 3 3 Question 10 TDP - 1 1 1 1 CTD - 2 2 2 2 CCC - 3 3 3 3 Question 11 TDP - 1 1 1 1 CTD - 2 2 2 2 CCC - 3 3 3 3 ________________________________________________________________ Means and Standard Deviations of the Dependent Variables and Covariates by Computer Program ______________________________________________________________ TDP CTD CCC ______________________________________________________________ Number Correct 115.51 (50.55)*** 46.22 (51.52) 26.03 (22.02) Rate Correct 14.77 (6.53)*** 5.82 (6.59) 3.31 (2.81) Latency to Respond 3.88 (2.06)* 2.39 (2.60)* 21.17 (19.81) Number Attempted 129.47 (49.26)* 59.10 (50.38)* 29.31 (25.82) Pretest Accuracy 95.16 (12.36) 96.88 (4.92) 93.50 (11.29) Posttest Accuracy 98.64 (3.03) 94.70 (16.18) 97.00 (3.84) One-week Accuracy 97.38 (5.40) 96.54 (4.81) 94.04 (10.61) One-month Accuracy 99.00 (2.09) 97.08 (4.40) 95.56 (7.95) Pretest Fluency 16.28 (6.97) 15.58 (6.16) 14.21 (7.64) Posttest Fluency 22.96 (8.25) 20.48 (7.02) 20.00 (7.53) One-week Fluency 24.63 (7.54)* 21.88 (6.12) 19.64 (6.40) One-month Fluency 26.79 (7.31)* 22.75 (6.30) 21.64 (7.58) ______________________________________________________________ * = significantly better than CCC; *** = significantly better than CTD and CCC 66% of students with learning disabilities receive remedial (i.e., basic facts) math instruction (Skinner et al., 1989) It is more challenging to remediate deficits in mathematics basic facts among older elementary students (e.g., Hasselbring et al., 1988). Need to find strategies that are effective and efficient to prevent and intervene early to address mathematics skills deficits. Current methods primarily rely on one-on-one implementation. Lentz, Allen, and Ehrhardt (1996) stated that “the more complex and time-consuming the intervention, the less likely it will be implemented as intended” (p. 129). Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) can deliver a sequence of events (e.g., math programs) that elicit responses from the learner and subsequently provide pre-programmed consequences for correct (e.g., positive feedback) or incorrect (e.g., positive practice, mild punishment) responses that are easy to implement Purpose of the study: to examine the effects of traditional drill and practice (TDP), constant time delay (CTD), and cover-copy-compare (CCC) that were delivered via a computer (i.e., computer assisted instruction, CAI) on first-grade students’ mathematics performance (addition problems that sum to 10) RESULTS: STUDENT ACCEPTABILITY Frequencies of Student Acceptability Ratings _____________________________________________________________ Yes No _____________________________________________________________ Question 1 68 4 Question 2 65 6 Question 3 65 7 Question 4 65 7 Question 5 67 5 _____________________________________________________________ There were no statically significant differences across the three experimental groups using chi-square test of independence. METHODOLOGY • 75 first-grade students without special education needs (M= 7.02 years, SD= 0.3) and 5 teachers • Variables of interest included: • accuracy (number of problems completed correctly) • fluency (digits correct per minute) • average latency (time taken for the student to respond divided by the number of problems attempted) • number of learning trials (number of opportunities to respond to presented stimuli) • treatment integrity (percentage of students who completed all 10 computer program trials and calculating the mean number of trials completed) • treatment acceptability • Written probes: given at before and after implementation of computer program and at one-week and one-month following completion • Computer program: students were trained and asked to complete 10 trials on assigned program (TDP, CTD, and CCC) • Acceptability measures: • students were asked to circle “yes” or “no” response to 5 statements (e.g., I like using the computer to help me learn) • teachers were asked to rank order the strategies from least to most preferable (i.e., 1, most preferred to 3, least preferred) for 11 statements (this strategy produced a positive impact on my students’ math fact accuracy) DISCUSSION • First empirical investigation comparing these three math strategies to each other and within a CAI framework • Findings: • CAI program: • TDP group completed more digits correct per minute than CCC at one-week and one-month follow-up • TDP group completed problems more quickly than CCC • TDP group got more problems correct, completed more digits correctly per minute, & attempted more problems than CTD & CCC • CTD group completed problems more quickly and attempted more problems than CCC • Students generally found computer procedures acceptable • No differences found between student preferences in CAI groups. • Teacher ratings suggested a preference toward TDP and CTD procedures over CCC procedures. • Teacher ratings similar to data regarding student CAI performance • Intervention was implemented with integrity • Average number of trials completed was 9.65 (out of 10) with 92% of participants completed all 10 trials • Limitations: non-referred population; students not in acquisition stage of skills being targeted for study; did not collect data on individual differences FUTURE RESEARCH • Replicate findings in clinical population • Explore preferences of CAI program by exposing students in all 3 program • Larger sample size of teachers • Explore impact of teacher set-up/training on acceptability/integrity