INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UM I a com plete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize m aterials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.

University M icrofilm s In t e r n a ti o n a l
A Bell & How ell I n fo r m a tio n C o m p a n y
3 0 0 N o r t h Z e e b R o a d . A n n Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1 3 4 6 US A
31 3 /7 6 1 -4 7 0 0

8 00/521-0600

O rder N u m b er 9303025

A su rvey o f th e in stru c tio n a l u se o f m icro co m p u ters in sp ecial
ed u ca tio n p rogram s in M ich igan
Min, Yeon Hong, Ph.D.
Michigan State University, 1992

C o p y rig h t © 1 9 9 2 b y M in , Y eon H on g. A ll r ig h ts reserved .

UMI

300 N. ZeebRd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

A SURVEY OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL USE OF
MICROCOMPUTERS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS
IN MICHIGAN

By
Yeon Hong Min

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State university
in Partial fulfillment of the requirements
, for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and
Special Education
1992

ABSTRACT
A SURVEY OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL USE OF MICROCOMPUTERS
IN SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN
By
Yeon Hong Min
The purpose of this study was to determine the
status of the instructional uses of microcomputers in
special education programs in public schools throughout
Michigan.

The study sought to provide information about

developed district polices and practices that appear to
promote the growth of microcomputer technology.
The survey instrument was mailed to 236 special
education administrators in Michigan; of that number, 59
were Intermediate School District (ISD) special
education directors and 177 were Local Educational
Agency (LEA) special education directors.

One hundred

eighty-nine usable surveys were returned for an 80%
response rate.
The major findings from this study were as follows:
A majority of respondents reported that both
special and general education teachers used
microcomputers in their classrooms.

About 58% of the respondents indicated that their
districts had already developed long-range technology
plans for general education programs.

Also,

34% of the

respondents indicated that their districts had special
education technology plans for special education
programs.
School districts with a special education
technology plan had a higher percentage of teachers
using microcomputers in special education classrooms
than did districts without such a plan.

Also, school

districts with a technology plan had a higher percentage
of teachers using microcomputers in general education
classrooms.
Special education administrators perceived that
microcomputers were used primarily to support
instruction.
agreement,
skills,

Other uses,

in descending order of

included tutoring students on specific

implementation of IEP goals, and rewarding

students for good behavior.
The percentage of special education teachers who
had been trained to use microcomputers ranged from 0% to
100% with a mean of 69.05%.
The administrators'

highest concern with regard to

inservice training was computer-assisted instruction.
The next highest concern was with selection and
evaluation of software and introduction to computer
application/computer literacy.

© Copyright by
YEON HONG MIN
1992

Dedicated to My Mother Whom I Love and Miss,
Chang Hee Lee
and
My son Whom I Love and am proud of,
Wesley McLaughlin, as I look to the future.

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank the members of my doctoral
committee. Dr. Eugene Pernell, Dr. Lilian Phenice,
Dr. John Vinsonhaler, and Dr. Donald Burke,
my chairperson, for the guidance and support they so
graciously provided.
To Dr. Donald Burke, I wish to express special
thanks for the years of valuable advice and constant
support that he so willingly provided during my
educational pursuit.
To Dr. Lucian Parshall and Dr. Hunt Riegel thank
you for the time, expertise, support, and guidance in
developing my survey instrument.
I gratefully acknowledge everyone at the Michigan
Center for Career and Technical Education for their
support.

I especially wish to thank Dr. Gloria Kielbaso

and Dr. John Mackenzie for their understanding and
guidance in the dissertation process.
To my father, Kyoung Hak Min, and brothers, Dae
Hong Min, and Kyu Hong Min, for providing continual
encouragement and support while I was taking classes and
writing my dissertation.

vi

To my mother-in-law, Eileen McLaughlin, thanks for
the support and for taking care of Wesley.
Most of all, to my husband, Timothy.

Without his

love and unwavering support and understanding, this
project would never have been completed.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES.....................................

X

CHAPTER 1

BACKGROUND .............................

1

Introduction ..........................
Statement of the Problem and Need for
the Stud y ......................
Purpose of the S t u d y .............
Research Objectives
..................
Research Questions
. . . . . . . . .
Limitations of the S t u d y .........
Definitions of Key T e r m s .........
Organization of the S t u d y .........

l

CHAPTER 2

5
8
9
9
10
11
14

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .........

16

Planning for Technology...........
16
Selected Topics Related to Instructional
Uses of Microcomputer.........
18
Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI).
Drill and Practice . . . . . . . .
Tutorial Program ..................
Simulation Program ...............
Educational G a m e s .............
23
Problem Solving.
...........
Computer Managed Instruction (CMI) .
Selection of Software. . .
.........
Teacher Training and Support .........
CHAPTER 3

DESIGN OF THE STUDY................
Introduction ..........................
The Study population ..................
Instrumentation....................
Development of the Survey Instrument
Relationship of Survey items to the
Research Question..............
Data Collection Procedures
Data Analysis Procedures
Summary.............................

viii

20
21
21
22
24
25
28
30

35
35
36
38
38
40
43
43
46

Page
CHAPTER 4

RESULTS OF DATA A N A L Y S E S ..........

47

Introduction ..........................
Results of the Statistical Analyses. .
Research Question 1 .............
Research Question 2 .............
Research Question 3 .............
Research Question 4 .............
Research Question 5 ...........
Research Question 6 .............
Research Question 7 .............
Summary.............................
CHAPTER 5

47
48
48
51
58
60
63
65
69
71

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71

Summary.............................
72
D i s c u s s i o n ........................
76
Recommendations........................
Recommendation for Practices . . . .
Recommendation for Further Study . .

81
81
83

APPENDICES
A

LETTER OF HUMAN SUBJECT APPROVAL.....

B

FIELD TEST L E T T E R ...........

C

SUPPORT L E TTER .........................

D

THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND COVER LETTER.

E

FOLLOW-UP L E TTER.......................

86
87
88
.

BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................

ix

89
94
95

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

3.1

Distribution of Respondents'

4.1

Percentage of Special Education Teachers
Using Microcomputers in their Classrooms.

.

49

Percentage of General Education Classes
Using Microcomputers in their Classrooms.

.

50

Number and Percentage of Districts that
Employ Full-Time Technology Coordinator

.

51

4.2
4.3
4.4

4.5
4.6
4.7

4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12

Positions.

...

.

45

Number and Percentage of Districts Employing
Anyone Who Shares the Responsibility as a
Technology Coordinator......................

52

Number and Percentage of Districts that
have a Technology Plan. .
...............

53

Number and Percentage of Districts that
have a Special Education Technology Plan.

.

54

Number and Percentage of Districts that Follow
the Special Education Technology Plan When
Purchasing Software/Hardware...............

55

Number and Percentage of Districts that
have a Committee for Purchasing Hardware.

56

.

Personnel Involved on School District's
Microcomputer Committee ....................

57

Personnel Involved in Decisions to Acquire
Microcomputer Hardware......................

58

Results of T-test on the Use of Microcomputers
in Special Education Classrooms ...........

59

Results of T-test on the Use of Microcomputers
in General Education Classrooms ...........

60

x

Table
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17

4.18
4.19
4.20
4.21

Page
Relation of Special Education Software to
the CORE C u r r i c u l u m ........................

61

Relation of Special Education Software to
an IEP G o a l .................................

62

Special Education Software Review
by the Teacher before the Purchase.........

62

Special Education Teachers' Annual Budget
for Instructional Software..................

63

Respondents' Agreement with Pour Goals of
Instructional Technology in Special
Education Classroom ........................

64

Electronic Information Services Used by
Special Education Teach e r s...............

.

65

Special Education Teachers Training in
the Use of M i c r o c o m p u t e r s ..................

68

Percentage of School's Budget for Staff from
Two S o u r c e s .................................

69

Special Education Administrator Concerns for
Inservice Training on Microcomputer
Applications.................................

70

xi

CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND
Introduction
During the last decade there has been unprecedented
growth in the amount of technology that is available in
schools.

In fall 1988, it was estimated that

approximately 1.7 million computers were being used in
public schools

(U.S. Congress, 1988).

The greater

availability and sophistication of new technology,
combined with decreasing costs, has provided the
potential for increased effectiveness and efficiency in
the delivery of special education services (Bennett,
1982).

The Authors of Power On! New Tools for

Teaching and Learning (U.S. Congress, 1988) suggested
that the dramatic increase in technology "shows a
widespread willingness on the part of school districts,
schools, teachers and parents to explore the
possibilities of new learning technology"

(p. 4).

Under Part G of the Education of the Handicapped
Amendments of 1986, the Office of Special Education
Programs

(OSEP) in the U.S. Department of Education is

authorized to support the development and appropriate
use of technology in special education. Part G
1

specifically authorizes four areas in which the OSEP
actively supports projects (a) determining how
technology is currently used in educating students with
handicaps and how it can be used more effectively,
(b)

designing and adapting new technology to improve the

education of these students,

(c) stimulating the public

and private sectors in the development and marketing of
new technologies, and (d) disseminating information on
the availability and use of technologies

(Burnette,

1990) .
Passage of the Technology-Related Assistance for
Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988 indicated an
increased public awareness of the benefits of technology
to educate handicapped students.

However, use of

microcomputers in special education raises a number of
new issues for program administrators in terms of the
development of policies and practices for the
instructional use of microcomputers, software selection,
and inservice teacher training.
In 1987, Goldman, Semmel, Cosden, Gerber, and
Semmel (1987) investigated the reactions of special
education administrators to microcomputer technology in
terms of the development of policies and practices
governing the adoption and use of microcomputers.

They

discovered that school district administrators of both
regular and special education programs faced economic
and instructional policy issues regarding the adoption

3
of microcomputers.

It appears that relatively little

information is available to guide the policy-making
processes toward optimal learning outcomes for children
with special needs.

Effective administration of special

education services at all levels depends upon the
availability of accurate and timely program information.
There is a great need for well-informed planning and
decision making.

Decisions that are made will likely

have important long-term consequences.
Policy analysis, according to Gray (1984), helps
planners focus on problems,

issues, and needs.

He

wrote:
Policy analysis is a vehicle by which district
administrators can gain knowledge for decision
making relative to an innovation like computer
use.
Through policy analysis they can come to
understand the problems-issues-needs surrounding
computer use in their own districts.
As a result,
they can be a position to set the direction and
content of such a change.
(p. 76)
Therefore, a prerequisite to policy and decision making
is to determine the appropriate use of microcomputers by
analyzing how microcomputers are currently being used
with children who have special needs.
Recently, school staffs have come to rely on fieldbased research to guide their school-improvement efforts
(Justiz & Mason, 1984).

When Johnson (1983) studied how

schools acquired their instructional-computing agenda of
action, he reported that a certain cycle of activity was
common to all sites.

He indicated that the cycle of

4
activity was

(a) awareness,

(b) identification,

(c) approval and commitment, and (d) implementation.
Cory (198 3) also reported that schools go through
identifiable stages when adding microcomputer
instruction to the curriculum.

Specifically, she found

that, before school systems can fully use computers,
they go through four invariant stages:
the bandwagon,
(c)

(a) getting on

(b) entering a stage of confusion,

pulling it all together, and (c) beginning full

implementation.
factors —

In addition, Cory suggested that six

hardware,

software, staff development,

computer-assisted learning, computer literacy, and
attitude —

must be considered at each stage.

Dershimer

(1982) recommended that the following be considered when
planning strategies to implement microcomputer use in
public education: training, funding, choosing software,
communicating with other users, matching goals with the
technology, selecting from diverse applications,
selecting hardware,

and using microcomputers equitably.

The researchers cited above corroborated a
commonality of implementation strategies across school
sites as schools work individually through the
innovation-adoption process.

Such findings have

reinforced the premise that a school's implementation
process can be facilitated by knowledge of the
documented practices and progress evaluations of schools

5
that are similar demographically (Hall, 1981).
Becker (1982) corroborated the need for further
research as a basis for more reliable decision making by
local schools:
For each of the problems that may result when
microcomputers are introduced into the school's
ongoing educational structure, systematic research
could help discover their incidence and severity and
the conditions under which the problem is minimized.
We need to develop an unbiased and representative
body of information about how schools decide to
obtain and use microcomputers and other technological
tools, how they use them, and the effects their use
has on students and the social organization of the
school.
However, in the absence of research, those who
implement various uses of microcomputers in an
educational environment should share with other
educators how they deal with them.
(P. 56)
The absence of such in-depth analyses is
particularly critical because the use of microcomputers
in special education will continue to grow.

Therefore,

it is necessary to know more about microcomputer use
with special needs students in order to develop coherent
policies and practices with regard to (a) planning for
technology,

(b) instructional uses of microcomputer,

(c)

selection of software; and (d) inservice teacher
training and support.

Statement of the Problem and Need for the Study
Despite the continued rapid increase in the
instructional use of microcomputers in special
education,

at present there is relatively little

information to guide the planning efforts related to the

6
educational computing needs of special education
students in Michigan.

To accelerate the realization of

the promise of technology, a much greater investment in
determining such needs is required.
According to the literature reviewed for this
study, microcomputer technology is useful in the
education of special needs students, and individualized
instruction can be enhanced through the use of
microcomputers

(Hanaford, 1983).

However, more

information is needed about the usefulness of
microcomputers in special education.
National surveys

(Hanley & Yin 1984, Market Data

Retrieval, 1984) have been conducted to identify the
administrative and instructional uses of microcomputers
in the United States.

These Surveys indicated that

microcomputers were being used in special education for
administrative and instructional purposes, but that
school personnel had difficulty selecting appropriate
software.

School districts also lacked information

concerning funding and staff development in relation to
microcomputer use.

In addition, Hanley

(1983) found

that the initial planning for and adoption of
microcomputers often occurred without much involvement
of district-level staff.
The need to determine the present level of the
integration of instructional computing activities in

7
Michigan schools was verified by the Michigan State
Board of Education (1984) in its Blueprint for A c t i o n :
The Michigan State Board of Education, based on the
recommendation of the referent technology group,
shall...
acquire existing school district plans in
order to develop and provide planning models for
school district and intermediate district use. (pp.
21 - 2 2 )
Becker (1982) corroborated the need for further
research as a basis for more reliable decision making by
both local schools and product developers:
For each of the problems that may result when
microcomputers are introduced into the school's
ongoing educational structure, systematic research
could help discover their incidence and severity and
the conditions under which the problem is minimized.
We need to develop an unbiased and representative
body of information about how schools decide to
obtain and use microcomputers and other technological
tools, how they use them, and the effects their use
has on students and the social organization of the
school.
However, in the absence of research, those who
implement various uses of microcomputers in
educational environments should share with other
educators how they deal with them.
( p. 56)
At present, relatively little is known about the
status of the instructional use of microcomputers,
inservice training of teachers on microcomputers,

and

software selection in special education programs in
Michigan.

By reviewing current research and by

contacting those involved with educational computing at
the Michigan Department of Education, Special Education
Services, the researcher determined that there is a need
for this type of study so that special education
educators can improve their present microcomputing

8
programs and plan for future educational computing in
special education.
Purpose of the Study
The researcher's overall purpose in this study was
to determine the status of the instructional use of
microcomputers in special education programs in public
schools throughout Michigan.

Areas of interest were

(a) the degree to which microcomputers are used for
instructional purposes in public schools,

(b) the

existence of policies concerning the instructional use
of microcomputers in terms of a technology plan and a
microcomputer committee,

(c) the nature of personnel

involvement in decisions to acquire hardware and
software,

(d) guidelines for purchasing software,

(e) inservice teacher training and support,
(f) special education administrators'

perceptions

regarding the goals of instructional technology in
special education classrooms, and (g) special education
administrators'

concerns regarding the inservice

training needs of special education teachers.
This study was undertaken in an attempt to provide
information for educational planners that might serve as
an indicator of present progress toward the integration
of microcomputers into special education programs in
Michigan.

9
Research Objectives
Specific objectives in conducting this study were
to:
1.

Determine the degree to which microcomputers
are used for instructional purposes in special
and general education programs throughout
Michigan.

2.

Determine the availability of technology plans
in school districts and the nature of school
personnel's involvement in decisions to acquire
hardware and software.

3.

Determine what considerations school districts
have given to purchasing instructional
software.

4.

Determine the status of inservice training on
microcomputers for special education teachers.

5.

Determine special education administrators'
perceptions regarding the use of microcomputers
in special education classrooms.

6.

Determine special education administrators'
concerns regarding inservice training in
microcomputer technology for special education
teachers.

7.

Develop recommendations, based on the finding
of this study, for educational planning and
microcomputer use in special education
programs.

Research Questions
This study was designed to answer the following
research questions with regard to the instructional use
of microcomputers in public school in Michigan:
1.

To what degree are microcomputers used for
instructional purposes in special and general
education programs in Michigan and do the two
programs differ in their use of microcomputers?

10
2.

What policy decisions have been made or are
being developed to ensure the instructional use
of microcomputer technology?

3.

Is there a difference in the instructional uses
of microcomputers between school districts that
have a technology plan and those that do not
have such a plan?

4.

What considerations have school districts given
to purchasing instructional software?

5.

What are special education administrators'
perceptions concerning microcomputer use in
special education classrooms?

6.

To what extent is inservice training on
microcomputers provided to special education
teachers and how is it funded?

7.

What are administrators' concerns with regard
to inservice training in microcomputer
technology for special education teachers?
Limitations of the Study

1.

The study was limited by available funds to

include intermediate school district (ISD) and local
education agency (LEA) special education directors in
Michigan.
2.

The study was limited to self-report survey

questionnaires mailed to ISD and LEA special education
directors.

Generalization from such self-reported

surveys lacks the validity of generalization from a
controlled study.
3.

Although it was field tested, the survey

instrument might have had built-in ambiguity that would
inhibit the collection of data pertinent to the study.

11
Definitions of Key Terms
The following terms are defined in the context in
which they are used in this dissertation.
Adaptive device.

Any input or output device or

interface that allows an individual to use a computer by
some means other than with the standard equipment.
BASIC (Beginners' All-purpose Symbolic
Instructional Code).

A computer-programming language

that often is used as an introduction to programming for
students.
Computer-assisted instruction ( C A P .

A teaching

process in which a computer is directly involved in the
presentation of instructional materials in an
interactive mode to provide and control the
individualized learning environment for each student.
Computer-managed instruction ( C M I K

A teaching

process in which instruction is systematically
controlled by the computer.
Computer literacy.

A term that is widely used, but

whose meaning has rarely been agreed upon. Lockheed,
Hunter, Anderson, Beazley, and Etsy (1983) described
computer literacy as:
Whatever a person needs to know and do with
computers in order to function competently in our
information-based society.
It includes three kinds
of competence: knowledge, skills and understanding:
(1) the ability to use and instruct computers to
aid in learning, solving problems, and managing
information; (2) knowledge of functions,
applications, capabilities, limitations, and social
implications of computers and related technology;

12
and (3) understanding needed to learn and evaluate
new applications and social issues as they arise.
Computer programming.

Designing, organizing, and

writing a series of instructions in a computer code
(programming language) to direct the computer to
complete a series of tasks.
Decision m a k i n g .

A process of formal or informal

procedures that may be followed to arrive at a final
choi c e .
Electronic information service.

A service linking

computers and/or databases for information retrieval or
interactive communication.
Electronic m a i l .

A computer-based electronic

message system that enables one person to compose a
message,

address it to another person, and ship it

electronically to that person's computer "mailbox."

The

message waits in the recipient's mailbox until that
person requests his or her computer to check the mailbox
for any mail that has been received.

Electronic message

systems are used widely in business, government, and
institutions of higher education.
Hardware.

The components of the computer,

including the display monitor,

the keyboard, disk

drives, printers, and so on.
Individualized education program (IEP).

A written

document required by federal law to detail the year's
plan for every handicapped child; includes statements of

13
present performance,

annual goals, short-term

instructional objectives, specific educational services
needed, relevant date, regular education program
participation, and evaluation procedures; must be signed
by parents as well as educational personnel.
Intermediate school district ( I S D K

A regional

educational agency that serves as a link between the
local school districts and the state education
authority.
Local School District (LSD).

A basic independent

educational unit of government, which has a
superintendent and a board of education.
LOGO.

A sophisticated programming language whose

creators have developed special programs whereby
children may have computer experiences that enhance such
skills as problem solving, procedural thinking,
debugging, and graphing.
Microcomputer.

A small, stand-alone computer that

historically was distinguishable from mini-computers and
mainframes by its relatively limited powers in terms of
processing speed and available memory.
Perception.

"The interpretation of received

stimuli in light of past experiences and knowledge"
(Hopkins 1976, p. 90).

In this study,

perception was

assessed by respondents' degree of agreement or
disagreement, as measured by their answers on a forcedchoice Likert-type scale, with statements about the

14
instructional use of microcomputers and teacher
inservice training.
Software.

The instructions and programs that are

used in the computer.
SpeclalNet.

(National Association of State

Directors of Special Education) offers a Comprehensive
System of Personnel Development (CSPD) Bulletin Board, a
potpourri of information about personnel development
efforts, practices,

and resources around the nation.

Word processing program.

An computer application

program that facilitates the process of writing,
editing, and printing any textual material.

Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five chapters.
Chapter I includes an introduction to the study, a
statement of the problem and need for the study, purpose
of the study and research objectives, limitations, and
definition of key terms.
Chapter II contains a review of literature on
issues and concerns in four areas related to computer
education.

These areas are Planning for Technology,

Selected Topics Related to the Instructional Use of
Microcomputers, Selection of Software,
Training and Support.

and Teacher

15
The methods and procedures used in this descriptive
study are described in Chapter III.
The findings of the study are presented in Chapter
IV.
Chapter V contains a summary of the research,
discussion and conclusions drawn from the major
findings, and recommendations for educational practice
and for further study.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The literature review focuses on selected issues
and concerns related to computer education.

The

discussion is focused on the following four subjects:
Planning for Technology, Selected Topics Related to the
Instructional Use of Microcomputers, Selection of
Software,

and Teacher Training and Support.
Planning for Technology

Current writers have supported the value of using
computers with special needs students
Maddux,

(Becker, 1982;

1984; MacArthur, Haynes, & Malouf, 1986).

Applications are varied, depending on the specific
disabilities of each student.

Meeting students' unique

needs has always been a major focus of special
education, and the microcomputer can help meet many of
those needs if its introduction is carefully planned.
To accomplish this, administrators must develop both
expertise in special education and technology and skill
in determining how this new instructional tool can best
complement and improve the educational process.

A

well-developed implementation plan, employing the
expertise of many educators in various disciplines, must
16

17
be developed in each school system (White, 1987).
Bailey (1991b) noted that "if administrators are to
infuse technology into their school and district, longrange planning must become the highest priority"
12).

(p.

Cory (1983) pointed out that if a district has

made a commitment to the implementation of instructional
computing,

its policy decision will be evidenced in its

long-range plans.
In Principals'

Planning Guide for Microcomputers

(1983), developed by the Michigan Council of Teachers of
Mathematics and the Michigan Intermediate Media
Association, using a cyclical process and involving the
school principal in planning for microcomputers are
recommended.

The planning process involves answering

the following questions:

(a) Which curriculum goals and

objectives are to be enhanced by microcomputers?;
(b)

What outcomes are expected, and how will their

achievement be measured?;
process will be used?;

(c) What software and/or

(d) What considerations have been

made for purchasing hardware?;
has been planned?;
achieved?;

(e) What staff inservice

(f) Were the intended outcomes

(g) What additional applications should be

considered?; and (h) What modifications to curriculum
goals should be considered?
Basic considerations with regard to planning
include:

involving a staff committee in developing the

18
plan; reflecting school goals, needs, and limitations;
joining with others to develop a district-level plan;
remembering that the plan is more temporary than
permanent; and making the budget realistic (Neill,
1983).

That is, planning requires experience and

expertise in both technology and education, as well as
an awareness of political and financial reality.
Researchers have indicated that the most successful
school districts have a comprehensive and long range
plan (Foster, 1988; Mageau 1991; Witthuhn,

1985).

Neill

(1983) suggests that this long range planning should be
a fluid process.

The Michigan State Board of Education

(1987), in Essential Goals and Objectives for Computer
Education, noted that "effective computer education can
only be accomplished when a district planning process is
adopted"

(p. 3).

In other words, planning for

technological implementation within the context of an
overall school district's strategic plan is the key to a
successful technology program.

Technology will continue

to shape the processes and systems of schooling.

Selected Topics Related to Instructional Uses of
Microcomputers
The literature offers considerable support for the
use of computer assisted instruction (CAI) with special
needs students

(Becker, 1982; Maddux,

Haynes, & Malouf, 1986).

1984; MacArthur,

One of the greatest potential

19
benefits of CAI to persons with disabilities lies in the
individualized nature of such instruction (Hanaford,
1983).

In addition to the advantages of

individualization, that is, immediate feedback and
reinforcement, and monitoring of progress, CAI frees the
teacher to devote more time to the students' educational
needs

(Forman, 1983).

For special needs children who

have experienced a prolonged history of academic
failure, the computer may be especially useful.

In a

nonthreatening manner, the computer program can ensure
the child failure-free mastery of new skills and
knowledge, or it can reinforce and support previous
attainments.

The child's sense of increased competence

is thus supported.

When the child's sense of competence

lags, a return to the computer program should be
positively reinforcing (Budoff & Hutten,

1982).

Hofmeister (1984) stressed the instructional
applications of computers and discussed them in relation
to (a) computer-assisted instruction (CAI), which puts
the learner in direct contact with the computer;
(b) computer-managed instruction (CMI), which concerns
the diagnosis of pupils'

strengths and needs and

prescriptive instructional interventions; and
(c) computer literacy, which entails learners becoming
aware of the applications of computers in society,
acquiring technical operational skills related to the
computer as a machine, and acquiring knowledge of the

20
computer's logical process and formal programming
languages.

Each of these areas is discussed more fully

in the following paragraphs.
Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI)
Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) is a teaching
process in which a computer is directly involved in the
presentation of instructional materials in an
interactive mode to provide and control the
individualized learning environment for each student.
The interactive mode usually is subdivided into drill
and practice, tutorial, simulation, game, and problem
solving (Burke, 1982).
Vinsonhaler and Bass

(1972) reviewed ten studies on

the use of CAI at the elementary school level.
studies were published between 1966 and 1970.

These
All ten

studies involved CAI drill and practice in mathematics
or language arts in grades 1 to 6.

CAI was used as a

supplement to traditional instruction, with standardized
achievement tests as the outcome meas u r e s .

These

authors found CAI to be superior to traditional methods
of instruction.

Also, in meta-analytic reviews of the

research literature, CAI has been found to enhance
learning, engender more positive attitudes toward course
work, and reduce the time needed for learning (Kulik,
Bangert, & Williams,

1983).

In addition, findings from

studies reviewed by the U.S. Congress, Office of

21
Technology Assessment (1988) led to the conclusion that
CAI is superior to conventional methods of instruction.
Drill and Practice.

The primary application of

microcomputers in CAI in special education is drill and
practice (Becker, 1982; Maddux, 1984).

Drill and

practice is designed to integrate and consolidate
previously learned material through practice on the
computer.

It serves as a supplement to other forms of

instruction (Burke, 1982).
Drill and practice CAI has been shown to have a
positive effect on the achievement of elementary school
children (Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1985).
MacArthur, Haynes, and Malouf (1986) found that subjects
with learning disabilities who engaged in drill and
practice CAI spent significantly more time attending to
academic content and less time off task than did
subjects who engaged in workbook activities.
Tutorial Programs.

Tutorial programs contain a

description or an explanation of the concepts being
taught.

Basically, a tutorial is intended to provide

some instruction,

ask questions to determine whether the

student understands,

and, on the basis of the student's

performance, provide further instruction if necessary.
The research on tutorial software is sparse and the
effectiveness of tutorial software has not yet been
determined.

However, the PLATO tutorial system,

22
developed by Control Data Corporation, was the subject
of a research study by Slattow (1977).

Slattow

concentrated on studying the effectiveness of
computerized tutorials in language arts and mathematics
instruction. Results indicated that only tutorials
involving fractions effected any significant
improvement in student learning.
Simulation Programs.

Simulations may be useful in

teaching students with handicaps skills that normally
would be difficult to teach because of the practical
considerations involved in placing the student in the
actual environment represented by the simulation (Moore,
Yin, & Lahm, 1986).

Also Strickland and Poe (1989)

noted that a simulation is a powerful teaching technique
that models a particular event by imitating or
replicating it.

In addition, simulations enable

learners to make low-risk decisions and receive
informative feedback in simulated consequences

(Doerr,

1979), to speed up or slow down the time frame to fit
instructional goals,

and to make abstract subjects more

concrete (Hunter, 1984; Roberts, 1984).
Lindsay (1986) suggested that good educational
simulations should include a number of features.
these features is realism.
of an active,

One of

A second is the presentation

responsive learning environment that

motivates students to explore.

The third and most

important feature, from a pedagogical point of view,

is

23
that the simulation should provide an opportunity for
students to arrive at an understanding of the system
through a cycle of hypothesis proposing and testing, and
then deciding which hypothesis to try next on the basis
of feedback received.
Educational G a m e s .

Educational games are designed

to develop general problem-solving methods and
strategies while maintaining students' interest and
motivation (Budoff, Thormann, & Gras,

1984).

Budoff et

al. noted that students who were mentally retarded,
learning disabled, and emotionally disturbed could
improve specific skills, including fine-motor
coordination, through the use of games.
Malone (1981) studied the effects of various
aspects of arcade games on students' game preferences as
indicated by ratings and time spent playing.

Although

they were not conclusive, his results suggested that
students' preferences for particular games were affected
by the amount of challenge,

fantasy, and sensory

curiosity (visual and auditory effects) in the games.
Also, Malone suggested other possible motivating aspects
of video games, such as:
that are difficult,

(a) a goal hierarchy with goals

but within reach, and with a ceiling

that is seemingly unlimited;

(b) high response rates

that demand students' undivided attention; and
(c) immediate response-by-response feedback, allowing

24
improvement as indicated by more global feedback.
Problem Solving.

Computers can be used to teach

problem-solving skills and to help students apply those
skills to solving actual problems.

Papert (1980)

proposed using microcomputers to allow children to
become generative problem developers and problem
solvers.

Also he noted that in the LOGO environment,

the child is in control.

The child programs the

computer. In teaching the computer how to think,
children embark on an exploration about how they
themselves think.

This approach has considerable

potential for many special needs children.

A major

problem of many children with specific and global
learning disabilities is their disordered approach to
problem solving (Budoff & Hutten,
Leher and deBernard

1982).

(1987) investigated the effects

of programs using LOGO compared with those using
commercially available software and no treatment on the
perceptual-language skills of preschoolers with language
impairments.

They found that children instructed in

LOGO achieved greater overall gains in perceptuallanguage skills than did those who were not instructed
in LO G O •
In summary, special education and CAI share the
common objective of catering to individual differences
by providing effective and efficient instruction that is
matched to the characteristics of learners.

Both are

25
purported to provide carefully sequenced content,
appropriate feedback, and consistent and accurate
monitoring of students' performance.

Both are designed

to offer appropriate pacing of instruction and
efficient, extrinsically motivating formats, as well as
provide for data-based instructional decisions.

Also

each is directed at providing individualized educational
planning and instruction within a restrictive
environment (Semmel, Cosden, Semmel, Kelemen, 1984).
Computer Managed Instruction (CMI^
Recently, much has been written about the potential
of computers for increasing the quality of
Individualized Education Programs

(IEPs) and decreasing

the cost and time of preparing IEPs, particularly in
light of computers' data-management capabilities
(Wilson, 1981).
Burke (1982) defined computer managed instruction
(CMI) as the systematic control of instruction by the
computer.

This instructional approach is characterized

by testing, diagnosis, learning prescriptions, and
thorough record-keeping.
Public Law 94-142 (the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act, 1975) mandates that all
handicapped children who need special education services
must be provided with free, appropriate public education
designed to meet their unique needs.

A cornerstone of

26
this provision is the development and implementation of
the IEP, the goals and objectives of which serve as a
blueprint of the child's instructional program
(Turnbull, Strickland, & Hammer, 1978).
However, some teachers have complained that the IEP
is "irrelevantly exaggerated paperwork"

(Sabatino, 1981)

and that they are expending time and effort on a process
that has little relevance to classroom instruction
(Goldberg, 1981).

Price and Goodman (1980) examined the

costs associated with developing an IEP and found that
writing the document and gathering supportive diagnostic
data, in that order, account for the major time
expenditure in the overall document-development process.
Developing an IEP is time consuming because the program
must contain much information gathered from a variety of
sources.

In addition, questions have been raised

concerning teachers'

ability to do in-depth curriculum

planning (Turnbull et al.,

1978) and to write the

sequential and technically adequate goals and objectives
that are required if the IEP is to be a useful
instructional tool (Tymitz, 1980).
Ryan and Rucker (1986) investigated the difference
between school districts using computerized IEPs and
those using noncomputerized IEPs with regard to the
attitudes of teachers toward IEPs, the time teachers
spent writing and preparing IEPs, and the cost per IEP.

27
The study findings indicated that teachers in districts
using computerized IEPs systems spent less time writing
IEPs and had a more favorable attitude toward IEP
instructional planning than did those in districts using
noncomputerized IEPs.

In addition, the cost per IEP for

computerized districts was less than the cost per IEP
for noncomputerized districts.
In another study, Davis (1985) examined the use of
computerized IEP management systems.

He found that the

advantages of the computerized approach are decreased
preparation time and increased teacher efficiency and
proficiency.

However, IEP-development programs can be

misused, resulting in IEPs that are neither
individualized nor appropriate to the needs of children
with disabilities.

Therefore, teachers, and parents

should be involved in selecting, developing,

and

implementing computerized IEP management systems.
Finally, Budoff, Thormann, and Gras

(1984) noted

that a computerized IEP system provides easily read
information that is specific to the student and saves
teachers many tedious hours formulating or transcribing
objectives.

Another major benefit of standardizing

objectives on a computer is that the objectives can more
easily be shared among concerned staff members.

28
Selection of Software
The advent of microcomputers on the educational
scene has brought a great deal of confusion to teachers
and administrators.

That is, as information emerges on

the function of microcomputers in the schools, educators
are expressing concern about the integration of CAI into
the curriculum and about the quality and quantity of
software available for students served by regular and
special education (Budoff et al., 1984; Grady, 1983).
In assessing the current and projected uses of CAI
in public schools. Chambers and Bork (1980) noted that
the need for additional and improved CAI modules is a
major impediment to usage.

Among the major critical

issues identified as confronting the school were the
acquisition of quality CAI, and the lack of guidelines
for integrating CAI into the curriculum.
Malouf, Morariu, Coulson, and Maiden (1989) noted
that the successful use of microcomputers in special
education depends on the selection and use of
appropriate instructional software.

The number of

instructional software products is rapidly increasing,
whereas the quality of this software and its
appropriateness for special education continue to be in
doubt.

Also, Preece (1984) remarked that many educators

decry the gap between the rapid increase in the amount
of hardware in schools and the painfully slow increase
in the amount of easily available, nontrivial,

29
educationally legitimate CAI material.
Blum (1982) and Malouf, Morariu, Coulson, and
Maiden (1989) found that it was difficult to achieve
acceptable levels of consistency and reliability, even
when software evaluation procedures were controlled and
the evaluators were trained.

Further, Malouf et al.

(1989) found that special education teachers preferred
trying out or examining software and talking with other
educators rather than looking at written evaluations of
software.
Currently, guidelines and sources of knowledge
about selecting quality software packages are limited.
Thus, many educators experience frustration after
purchasing poorly designed software packages that fail
to help students achieve the desired learning outcomes.
Although educators have acknowledged the
effectiveness of CAI software in an educational setting,
they have criticized much of the software that exists.
Careful development of software and thorough evaluation
of its merits are, therefore,

important.

Also needed

are improvements in teacher training in the use of this
software as well as research that defines the choices
which educators should consider in the course of
planning CAI

(Brinker, 1984).

In summary, the small amount of outcome-evaluation
research that currently is available on educational

30
software is not plentiful enough.

Educators need to

interpret published recommendations with caution.
Ratings from different sources may not agree with each
other, and there is no evidence that subjective
judgments of effectiveness are predictive of the actual
effectiveness of programs.

Therefore,

identifying

quality software and planning for the acquisition of
enough copies of selected software and its integration
into the curriculum must be completed before
implementation.
Each school system should design its own method of
evaluation, based on its specific needs assessment.
Software evaluation is an ongoing process, whether it is
carried out as part of the decision-making process in
the initial purchase of the microcomputer or in the
yearly purchase of software.

Therefore, an organized

method for cataloging information is necessary

(Taber,

1984).
Teacher Training and Support
To make the technology work in schools, it is
critical that staff members support the concept of
instruction with computers and use them constructively
with students.

For this to happen, school districts

must develop ways to nelp staff become familiar with how
microcomputers work and how they can be used for
instruction.

(Budoff et al., 1984).

A staff-

31
development program serves two basic purpose:
allay staff members'

(a) to

fears and change their attitudes

about computer technology and (b) to encourage and
assist staff members in acquiring the necessary
knowledge and skills for integrating computer technology
effectively into the curriculum (Bakke, 1984).
According to Power On! New Tools for Teaching and
Learning (U.S. Congress, 1988) despite the desire of
most teachers to use computers and other interactive
technologies in their teaching, most educators have not
received sufficient or appropriate instruction and
training to enable them to use technology effectively.
Also, the authors of Power On!
the federal government,

suggested that states,

schools of education, and the

private sector all have roles to play in improving
teachers' preparation in the use of technology.
Especially crucial is state support; such support is a
significant factor in both teacher training and school
use of technology.
In addition, Time for Results: The Governors'

1991

Report on Education, the National Governors' Association
task force recommends that at least 10-20 percent of
State funds allocated for acquisition of various
machines should be designated for training programs.
The task force strongly believes that the State must
make a greater commitment to support staff training
programs.

32
Bork (1984) believed that, in general,

"United

States' teachers are poorly trained to use computers
effectively"

(p. 179).

Teachers who are district-

trained in computer uses through occasional inservice
activities gain little lasting understanding of
educational applications, he reported.

Ragsdale (1982)

suggested that inservice education is likely to become
more important with time because of increased needs,
more resources, added student demands, and different and
greater pressures on teachers.
The promise of microcomputer technology is vast,
but the need for administrative leadership and support
cannot be emphasized enough.

The special education

administrator must lead the staff in the use of computer
technology or encourage and support leadership by
interested teachers
Moursund

(Budoff et al., 1984).

(1981) said that a major problem schools

have in implementing computer technology is "training
teachers so they have the knowledge, skills, and
attitudes to effectively use computers with students"
(p. 8).

He suggested that principals might expedite

staff development by (a) choosing an in-house expert who
is enthusiastic about educational computing,

(b)

overseeing an individualized teacher-made plan for
keeping up in the field and relating that to the
teacher's instructional area,

(c) encouraging and

33
implementing additional training opportunities,
(d)

creating an awareness of courseware evaluation and

location sources to help teachers select proper
courseware, and (e) making the most use of the equipment
provided.
In summary, it was apparent throughout the
literature that there is a concurrent need for staff
support and development at any juncture where an
innovation infiltrates a school or is formally adopted
by a school system.

Bell and Elmquist

(1992) said that

technology must now move to center stage in education
and be used to replace, not just supplement, past
practices.

Unless teachers have full access to

technological tools and learn to use them to teach
effectively, these tools will remain only a powerful
means of transforming the education process.
Effective staff training and support are essential
to ensure successful implementation of the special
education plan for using computers in instruction.
Educators must be well versed in the specialized
knowledge, skills, and processes relevant to using
computers and adaptive devices to deliver, support,
manage instruction.

and

Administrators must support

teachers in this endeavor by making equipment, training,
and time available.

Finally, the need for inservice

will continue because computer technology and the uses
of that technology will continue to change.

Inservice

34
training is critical.

Without proper support and

adequate funding, technology in education will be just
another fad (Bailey, 1991a).

CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The specific procedures and methods used in
carrying out this descriptive study are presented in
this chapter.
The study was designed to determine the status of
the instructional use of microcomputers in special
education programs in public schools throughout
Michigan.

The researcher also sought microcomputer

information about school district policies and practices
that have been developed which appear to promote the
growth of an emerging microcomputer technology in
special education in Michigan.

The study was undertaken

to provide information about the current direction and
extent of policies and practices related to the
instructional uses of microcomputers in special
education programs in Michigan public schools.
The purpose of descriptive research is to portray
current conditions accurately and objectively.

Good and

Skates (1957) described the nature and value of
descriptive research in the following way:
Much of the significance and importance of the
descriptive study lies in the possibility of
35

36
investigating the status of conditions at any given
time and of repeating the survey at a later date,
thus providing descriptions of cross-sections at
different times, in order that comparisons may be
made, the direction of change noted and evaluated
and future growth or development predicted.
Such
guidance is of relatively great importance in our
complex and rapidly changing modern society.
(p.
550)
Sax (1979) also reported that descriptive research
often is of greatest value at the beginning stages of an
investigation.

It can be surmised that the advent of

instructional computing in special education presents
such a beginning stage, and that the present
researcher's attempt to describe the status of this
development was appropriately served by using the
descriptive research method.
The Study Population
The population for this study comprised all 59
intermediate school district (ISD) special education
directors and all 177 local education agency (LEA)
special education directors in Michigan.

The ISD serves

as a link between the local school districts and the
state education authority.

In many cases, ISDs may

provide services to special needs students that LEAs
cannot offer because they do not have adequate funds or
enough students to implement such programs.

The ISDs

may also provide inservice training to staff members.
ISD special education directors were included in this
study as it was believed they would have broad

37
perspectives on how special education programs operate
within their districts and how teachers are kept abreast
of current trends in special education and computer
technology.
The LEA operates independent education programs
within its own boundaries.

Mayer

(1982) described the

responsibilities of the LEA special education director
as including curriculum supervision, placement of
students, budget development and monitoring, working
with parents, staff inservice education, program
evaluation, and supervising educational programs and
services located at schools in the community.

The

researcher believed that performance of these
responsibilities would provide LEA directors with the
knowledge of, or access to, the information called for
in response to the survey questions.
This survey is considered to be cross-sectional in
that standardized information was collected from a
predetermined population (Borg & Gall, 1973).

Guidance

in selecting the study participants was provided by
staff of the Michigan Department of Education, Special
Education Services.

38
Instrumentation
Development of the Survey Instrument
A survey was designed to collect information
pertinent to district-level special education program
practices and polices with regard to microcomputers.
Questions were structured to elicit the following
information (a) the degree to which microcomputers are
used for instructional purposes,

(b) the existence of

policies concerning the instructional use of
microcomputers in terms of a technology plan and a
microcomputer committee,

(c) the nature of personnel

involvement in decisions to acquire hardware and
software,

(d) guidelines for purchasing software,

(e) inservice teacher training and support,
education administrators'

(f) special

perceptions regarding the

goals of instructional technology in special education
classrooms, and (g) special education administrators'
concerns regarding the inservice training needs of
special education teachers.
The survey items were based on input from computer
experts in the Special Education Services Division of
the Michigan Department of Education, the ACCESS Project
(a state-initiated project on microcomputers awarded by
the Michigan Board of Education to Oakland Schools under
Title V l - B ), and a statistical advisor.

In addition to

summary articles on educational computing practices in

39
professional journals, a number of current research
studies and recently developed educational computing
assessment instruments influenced the content of survey
questions in all categories of interest.
A preliminary version of the survey was field
tested to estimate response time, to verify the
completeness and content of the questions and the
readability of the survey, and to seek comments on any
deficiencies in the instrument and suggestions for its
improvement.

Seven respondents, special education

coordinators and special education supervisors who had
experience in the administration and supervision of
special education, were selected for the field test.

On

the basis of responses to this field test, the survey
instrument was revised and refined to incorporate
appropriate recommendations.
Following these refinements, the survey was
reviewed and approved by members of the researcher's
doctoral committee.

A version of the survey instrument

was developed and submitted to the Michigan Department
of Education to ensure the appropriateness of all items
in the survey (see Appendix D).

The final version of

the survey contained 3 3 questions.

40
Relationship of Survey Items to the Research Questions
Seven research questions were posed in this study.
The research questions and the survey items related to
each question are listed below.
Research Question 1
To what degree are microcomputers used for
instructional purposes in special and general
education programs in Michigan and do the two
programs differ in their use of microcomputers?
Survey Items:
1-1.

What percentage of your special education
teachers use computers in their classroom?

1-2.

What percentage of the general education
classrooms in your school district use
microcomputers?

Research Question 2
What policy decisions have been made or are being
developed to ensure the instructional use of
microcomputer technology?
Survey Items:
1-3.

Does your district have a full time
technology coordinator?

1-4.

Does anyone have this responsibility in your
district?

1-5.

What percentage of time is the above person
assigned to this responsibility?

1-6.

Does your district have a technology plan?

1-7.

Does your district have a special education
technology plan?

1-8.

Do you use the special education technology
plan when special education instructional
staff make a request to purchase
instructional software?

41
1-9.

Do you use the special education technology
plan when special education instructional
staff make a request to purchase hardware?

1-10. Does your district have a committee for
purchasing hardware?
1-11. Who is involved on your district's committee?
1-12. Who is involved in your district's decision
to purchase hardware?
Research Question 3
Is there a difference in the instructional uses of
microcomputers between school districts that have a
technology plan and those that do not have such a
plan?
Survey Items:
1-1.

What percentage of your special education
teachers use computers in their classroom?

1-2.

Approximately what percentage of the general
education classrooms in your school district
use microcomputers?

1-6.

Does your district have a technology plan?

1-7.

Does your district have a special education
technology plan?

Research Question 4
What considerations have school districts given to
purchasing instructional software?
Survey Items:
II-l.

Does special education software have to
relate to the CORE curriculum used in the
district?

II-2.

Does special education software have to
relate to an IEP (Individualized Education
Plan) goal?

II-3.

Does special education software have to be
reviewed by the teacher prior to purchase?

42
II-4.

What is the budget that you allow for each
special education teacher to purchase
instructional software over the school year?

Research Question 5
What are special education administrator's
perceptions concerning microcomputer use in special
education classrooms?
Survey Items:
Please indicate your level of agreement with the
following comments concerning the use of
instructional technology in special education
classrooms (Strongly, Disagree, Disagree,
Undecided, Agree, Strongly Agree)
II - 5 .
II-6.
II-7.
II-8.

Tutor student on specific skills
Implement the IEP
Supplement instruction
Reward students for good behavior

Research Question 6
To what extent is inservice training on
microcomputers provided to special education
teachers and how is it funded?
Survey Items:
III-l.

Does your special education teacher(s) use
any of the following electronic information
services?

III-2.

Indicate the percentage of your special
education teacher(s) who have been trained
to use microcomputers.

III-3.

Indicate, by percentage, how your special
education teachers have been trained to use
microcomputers.
Inservice training within your district
Inservice training within your intermediate
district
Inservice training at higher education
institution
Outside private consultants
Special computer conferences

43
III-4.

What percentage of the school's budget for
staff training on microcomputers falls into
the following categories?
General education budget
Special education budget

Research Question 7
What are administrators' concern with regard to
inservice training in microcomputer technology for
special education teachers?
Survey Items:
III-5.
III-6.
III-7.
III-8.
III-9.
111-10.
III-ll.
111-12.
111-13.

Introduction to computer
application/computer literacy
Computer-assisted instruction
Computer-managed instruction
Selection and evaluation of software
Word processing
Graphics
Computer programming (e.g., BASIC, LOGO,
etc. )
Adaptive devices
Electronic Information Services

Data Collection Procedures
The survey was mailed to 236 special education
administrators in Michigan including all 59 ISD special
education directors and 17 7 LEA special education
directors.

The Special Education Services Division of

the Michigan Department of Education assisted by
providing mailing labels.
A cover letter was included in the survey packet
explaining the purpose of the survey, emphasizing its
importance and significance, and stating how the
resultant information would be used (see Appendix D).

A

44
stamped envelope addressed to the researcher was
enclosed to facilitate return of the surveys.

In the

cover letter, the researcher asked that the survey be
returned by May 24, 1991.

Respondents were assured of

the confidentiality of their answers and they did not
have to identify themselves or their school system on
the survey.

The surveys were stamped with an

identification number to help in tracking
nonrespondents.

A letter of support signed by the

chairperson of the researcher's doctoral committee was
also included in the survey mailing (see Appendix C ) .
On May 21, 1991, a reminder letter was sent to
nonrespondents

(see Appendix E), asking them to return

their completed surveys.

They were asked to call the

researcher if they had misplaced the survey or had not
received one; in such case, a replacement survey would
be mailed to them.
As surveys were received, the researcher checked
them for completeness to determine whether they should
be included in the study.

Four of the 19 3 surveys that

were returned were not used because they were
incomplete.

Hence, 189 surveys were judged to be

usable, yielding a response rate of 80%.

Although the

survey was sent to 59 ISD special education directors
and 177 LEA directors, not all of the surveys were
completed by these individuals.

Thirty-four surveys

were filled out by other individuals who were

45
knowledgeable about and responsible for the computing
programs in their district.

The positions of the survey

respondents are shown in Table 3.1.

This breakdown of

respondents by position provides a way to view the
survey data in light of the respondents'

access and

participation.
Table 3.1 —

Distribution of Respondents'

Positions

N
ISD Directors
LEA Directors
Others
Total

39
116
34
189

Data Analysis Procedures
After the survey responses were compiled, the
researcher screened the data to ensure that they were
appropriate for use in the statistical analysis.

The

data were then coded and keyed for the computer
analysis.

A printout of the data file was retrieved and

compared with the original raw data to check for
accuracy.

Data analysis was carried out using the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

(SPSS).

Because the researcher's purpose was to describe the use
of computer technology in special education programs,
the primary statistical procedures employed were
frequency distributions, percentages, mean scores,
standard deviations, t-tests, and summary forms of

46
descriptive statistics.

The conventional .05 level was

set as the criterion for significance for the t-test.
Summary
This chapter contained a description of the study
population, the instrument used to collect data for the
study, and the data-collection and data-analysis
procedures used in carrying out the research.

The

results of the data analyses are presented in Chapter
IV.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSES
Introduction
The researcher's overall purpose in conducting this
study was to determine the status of the instructional
use of microcomputers in special education programs in
public schools throughout Michigan.

The researcher also

sought to provide information about district policies
and practices concerning the instructional use of
microcomputer technology in special education programs
in Michigan.

Special education administrators'

perceptions regarding the goals of instructional
technology in special education classrooms also were
investigated, as were these administrators'

concerns

regarding inservice training needs of special education
teachers.
The survey instrument was mailed to 236 special
education administrators in Michigan; of that number, 59
were ISD special education directors and 177 were LEA
special education directors.

One hundred eighty-nine

usable surveys were returned, resulting in an 80%
response rate.

47

48
Results of the Statistical Analyses
In this section, each research question is
restated, followed by the results of the statistical
analysis for that question.

Although 189 surveys were

returned, not every respondent answered every question.
Therefore, figures shown in the tables might not always
equal 189.
Research Question 1
To what degree are microcomputers used for
instructional purposes in special and general
education programs in Michigan and do the two
programs differ in their use of microcomputers?
Respondents were asked what percentage of their
special education teachers used microcomputers in their
classrooms.

As shown in Table 4.1, about one-third

(31.7%) of the respondents said that all special
education classes in the school district used computers
in their classrooms.

Thirty-seven percent of the

respondents said that 51% to 75% of their special
education classes used microcomputers.

Fifteen percent

of the respondents reported that 26% to 50% of their
special education classes used microcomputers,

and

another 15% said that 1% to 25% of their special
education classes used microcomputers.

Just one (0.5%)

of the respondents said that none of the special
education classes in the district used computers in
their classrooms.

These data indicate a high use of

49
microcomputers in special education programs throughout
Michigan.

Table 4.1. —

Percentage of Special Education Teachers
Using Microcomputers in their classrooms

Percentage of Classes Using Microcomputer
None
1-25% of Classes
26-50% of Classes
51-75% of Classes
All Classes
Total

N
1
29
29
70
60
189

%
.5
15.3
15. 3
37 .0
31.7
100 .0

To determine the degree to which microcomputers are
used for instructional purposes in general education
classrooms, respondents were asked what percentage of
the general education classrooms in their school
districts used microcomputers.

As shown in Table 4.2,

16.7% of the respondents said that all classes used
microcomputers.

Thirty percent of the respondents

reported that 51% to 75% of classes used microcomputers,
another 30% indicated that 26% to 50% of classes used
microcomputers,

and 20.4% stated that 1% to 25% of

classes used microcomputers.

Only 3% of the respondents

said that no classes in their districts used
microcomputers.

However, 15% of the respondents did not

answer the question, or said they were "not sure."

ISD

and LEA special education directors sometimes qualified
their answers by writing in such comments as

50
"Kindergartners do not use computers, which reduces the
ratio" or "I am not sure." In addition, it was not clear
whether the reported use of microcomputers in the
classroom included or excluded factors of use-time and
access to microcomputers.

However, the data in Table

4.2 indicate that, in general education, the
instructional use of microcomputers is prevalent.
Table 4.2. —

Percentage of General Education Classes
Using Microcomputers in their classrooms.

Percent of Class used
None
1-25% of Classes
26-50% of Classes
51-75% of Classes
All Classes
No responses
Total

%

N
6
33
48
48
27
27
189

3 .7
20 .4
29.6
29.6
16 .7
100.0

Concerning the instructional use of microcomputers
in general education and special education,

it was

assumed that microcomputers would be used less in
special education programs than in general education
programs.

However, the respondents indicated that

approximately equal proportions of general education and
special education programs used computers for
instruction. In summary, the findings suggest that most
special and general education teachers in Michigan use
microcomputers for instructional purposes in their
classrooms.

51
Research Question 2
What policy decisions have been made or are being
developed to ensure the instructional use of
microcomputer technology?
The survey contained several items related to this
research question.

To find out about the technical or

resource assistance available in the district, the
respondents were asked:

"Does your district have a

full-time technology coordinator?" A technology
coordinator would be responsible for the overall
organization and direction of the school district's
computers in the educational program.
survey responses, one-third

According to the

(34.6%) of the school

districts employed a full-time technology coordinator,
whereas two thirds

(65.4%) of the school districts did

not (see Table 4.3).
Table 4.3. —

Number and Percentage of Districts that
Employ Full-time Technology Coordinator
N

No Full-time Technology Coordinator
Full-time Technology Coordinator
Total

123
65
188

%
65. 4
34 .6
100. 0

Another question concerned the district's
outreach to help and/or receive help with the
instructional uses of microcomputers when a full-time
technology coordinator was not employed.

Thirty-eight

percent of the respondents indicated that their

52
districts received assistance from a part-time
technology coordinator, data center personnel, Regional
Educational Media Center (R E M C ) staff, a media
specialist, the coordinator of special education, or
teachers.

Twenty-seven percent of the respondents said

that their districts did not have anyone who was
responsible for coordinating technological aids.
Table 4.4. —

Number and Percentage of Districts
Employing Anyone Who Shares the
Responsibility as a Technology Coordinator

No
Yes
No Response
Total

N

%

51
72
66
189

27 .0
38.1
34.9
100.0

Bailey (1991) noted that "if administrators are to
infuse technology into their school and district, longrange planning must become the highest priority (p.
12)."

Also, Cory (1983) pointed out that if a district

has made a commitment to the implementation of
instructional computing, its policy decision will be
evidenced in its long-range plans.
To ascertain whether a technology plan had been or
was being developed in the respondents' districts, two
questions were asked:

"Does the district have a

technology plan in general education?" and "Does the
district have a special education technology plan in

53
special education?".

As shown in Table 4.5, 58% of the

respondents said that their school district had a
technology plan.

In addition, several respondents

commented that "A technology plan is in development
stage," or "The district has a technology plan; however,
it is outdated and needs revision."
Table 4.5. —

Number and Percentage of Districts that
have a Technology Plan

Technology Plan
No Technology Plan
No response
Total

N

%

109
75
5
189

57 .7
39 .7
2.6
100 .0

In terms of special education technology plans,
about one-third (34.4%) of the respondents said that
their district had such a plan, whereas two-thirds

(64%)

of respondents indicated their district did not have a
special education technology plan (see Table 4.6).
Several LEA special education directors reported that
"The plan was included in part of ISD district master
plan, and no need for separation,"

"In process,"

"Not

specific to special education but

will soon be included

in district plan," "We did have a

special education

technology plan years ago," or "Because the school
district is so small and communication is informal;
we will get our plan in writing."

but

54
In summary, the findings indicated that as
technology is emerging, technology plans have evolved
more in general education than in special education.
Also, many special education technology plans have been
included in the technology plans in general education.
Table 4.6

—

Number and Percentage of Districts that
Have a Special Education Technology Plan
N

Special Ed. Technology Plan
No Special Ed. Technology Plan
No Response
Total

65
121
3
189

%
34 .4
64.0
1.6
100 .0

When a school district commits to long-range
planning for the instructional use of microcomputers,
their policies would be directed toward the acquisition
of hardware, maintenance of technological equipment,
procurement of software, and formulation of ongoing
plans for teacher training and technological updating
(Cory, 1983).

To determine whether the districts'

special education technology plans were followed when
purchasing instructional software and hardware,
respondents were asked:

"Do you use the special

education technology plan when special education
instructional staff make a request to purchase
instructional software and hardware?" As shown in Table
4.7, a majority of respondents

(89%) followed the

special education technology plan when purchasing

55
instructional hardware.

About 10% of the respondents

did not follow that plan when purchasing instructional
hardware.

However, 72.3% of the respondents reported

that the special education technology plan was followed
when purchasing instructional software, and 27.7% of
respondents reported that the plan was not followed.
The data in Table 4.7 suggest that policy and practice
were related.
Table 4.7. —

Number and Percentage of Districts that
Follow the Special Education Plan When
Purchasing Software/hardware
Yes
N

Software
Hardware

47
58

No
%
72.3
89.2

N

%

19
7

27 .7
10.8

To determine the nature of district personnel
involvement in the acquisition of computer hardware,
respondents were asked whether their district had a
committee for purchasing hardware.

White (19 87) noted

that determining who will make hardware decisions is
critical.

Teachers who have computer expertise and who

use the microcomputer as an instructional tool should
have an opportunity to review the hardware choices and
provide input as to which keyboard, monitor, and other
hardware components would be best for their students.
In this study, better than half of the respondents
(50.8%) said that their districts had a committee for

56
purchasing microcomputer hardware, whereas the other
half (48.2%) reported that their districts did not have
such a committee (see Table 4.8).
Table 4.8. —

Number and Percentage of Districts that
have a Committee for Purchasing Hardware
N

Item Statement
Committee for Purchasing Hardware
Committee for Purchasing Hardware

92
95

%
48.2
50.8

In addition, respondents were asked to indicate who
was involved in the district's decision to purchase
hardware.

They could cite more than one person.

Responses to this item are shown in Table 4.9.

Most

frequently (46%), teachers were involved in decisions to
purchase computer hardware.

In addition,

38% of the

respondents indicated principals were involved,
a coordinator was involved,
media specialist,

32% said

30% mentioned a librarian or

27% cited special education

administrators, and 10% mentioned other personnel.
These included media personnel, the superintendent, the
curriculum director,

and central office staff.

The push for microcomputer acquisition has moved
away from the single-person, usually a teacher pattern,
toward groups of teachers and/or school and districtlevel administrators.

Becker (1985) indicated that this

shift has been accompanied by increases in the range of

57
students who have access to and are using microcomputers
and the instructional uses for which microcomputers are
employed.
Table 4.9. —

Personnel Involved on School District's
Microcomputer Committee
(N=189)

Personnel

N

Teachers
Principal
Coordinator
Librarian or Media specialist
Special education administrators
Others (specify)

88
73
62
57
51
19

%
46 .0
38.6
32.8
30.2
27 .0
10.0

Note: Respondents could circle more than one answer.
In addition, participants were asked,

"If the

district does not have a microcomputer committee, who is
involved in your district's decision to purchase
hardware?"
answer.

Respondents could circle more than one

They indicated that the decision to purchase

microcomputer hardware tended to be made by more than
one individual or a group (see Table 4.10).

In most

cases (73%), teachers were involved in this decision.
About 71% of the respondents also indicated that special
education administrators and/or principals were
involved, about 47% mentioned a coordinator, and 41% a
librarian or media specialist.

Also,

34% of the

respondents specified the involvement of a curriculum
coordinator, superintendent, central office personnel,
parents, director of special services, and secretary.

58
In general, the acquisition of hardware was
characterized by collaboration across educational
programs and across personnel categories in the
district.

That is, the acquisition of hardware was an

interactive process, involving both central office
administrators and site-level personnel.
Table 4.10. —

Personnel Involved in Decisions to
Acquire Microcomputer Hardware
(N=189)

Personnel

N

Teachers
Special Ed. Administrator
Principal
Coordinator
Librarian or
Media Specialist
Others (specify)

%

138
134
125
88

73.0
70.9
66.1
46.6

77
64

40.7
33.9

Note: Respondents could circle more than one answer.
Research Question 3
Is there a difference in the instructional uses of
microcomputers between school districts that have a
technology plan and those that do not have such a
plan?
Planning for technology, within the context of
school district strategic planning,
successful technology program.

is the key to a

Researchers have

indicated that the most successful districts have a
comprehensive and long-range plan (Foster, 1988; Mageau,
1991; Witthuhn,

1985).

Using a five-point scale, the

respondents were asked to indicate the percentage of
special education teachers using microcomputers in their

59
classrooms

(1 = None, 2 = l%-25% of classes use

computers,

3 = 26%-50% of classes use computers,

4 = 51%-75% of classes use computers, 5 = all classes
use computers).

Based on the responses to this survey

question, districts that had no special education
technology plan had a mean score of 3.69, whereas
districts with a special education technology plan had a
mean of 4.10.

A T-test was performed on these data and

the difference in the means of districts with and
without special education technology

plans was found to

be significant at the .05 level (see

Table 4.11).That

is, a higher percentage of teachers in districts with a
special education technology plan were using
microcomputers in their classrooms as compared to
teachers in districts without such a plan.
Table 4.11 —

Results of T-test on the Use of
Microcomputers in Special Education
Classrooms
(n)

No Sp. Ed. Tech. Plan

Mean

SD

Standard
Error

(121)

3.694

1.079

.098

(65)

4.107

.970

.120

t-value

2.58
Sp. Ed. Tech. Plan

df

Prob.

184

.011*

*Significant at the .05 level.
Using the same five-point scale described above,
respondents were asked to indicate the percentage of
general education classrooms that used microcomputers.
Based on their responses to this item, districts with no

60
technology plan had a mean of 2.96, whereas those with a
technology plan had a mean of 3.57.

As shown Table

4.12, the difference between mean was statistically
significant at the .05 level.

In other words, more

teachers were using microcomputers in their classrooms
in school districts with a technology plan than
districts without such a plan.
Table 4.12. —

Results of T-test on the Use of
Microcomputers in General Education
Classrooms
{n)

Mean

SD

Standard
Error

No Technology Plan

(62)

2.967

1.008

.128

Technology Plan

(95)

3.528

1.078

.111

t-value

df

3.56

Prob

155

*Significant at the .05 level.
Research Question 4
What considerations have school districts given to
purchasing instructional software?
The successful use of microcomputers in special
education depends on the selection and use of
appropriate instructional software.

The quantity of

software products is rapidly increasing, whereas the
quality and appropriateness of this software for special
education may be questioned.
To ascertain the guidelines that were being used to
purchase software for special education programs in
Michigan, survey respondents were first asked whether
special education software had to relate to the CORE

.00

61

curriculum used in the district.

Only about one-fifth

of the respondents (19.6%) said that such software had
to relate to the CORE curriculum.

Conversely, almost

80% of the respondents said that special education
software did not have be to related to the CORE
curriculum.

Several respondents indicated that software

usually related to the CORE curriculum, although this
was not necessary.

The responses to this item are shown

in Table 4.13.
Table 4.13. —

Relation of Special Education Software to
the CORE Curriculum
%

N
No relation to CORE Curriculum
Relation to CORE Curriculum
No response
Total

148
37
4
189

78.8
19.6
1. 6
100.0

Next, respondents were asked whether the special
education software had to relate to an Individualized
Education Plan (IEP) goal.

As shown in Table 4.14,

two-thirds of the respondents

(64.6%) said that special

education software did not have to relate to an IEP
goal.

However,

34.9% of the respondents indicated that

such software did have to relate to an IEP goal.

62
Table 4.14. —

Relation of Special Education Software
to an IEP goal

No Relation to IEP Goal
Relation to IEP Goal
No response
Total

N

%

122
66
1
189

64.6
34.9
.5
100.0

Respondents also were asked whether special
education software had to be reviewed by the teacher
placing the order before the purchase.

About half of

the respondents (53%) said that special education
software did have to be reviewed by the teacher before
the purchase, but about 47% of respondents indicated
that the teacher did not have to review the software
before the purchase (see Table 4.15).
Table 4.15. —

Special Education Software Review by
the Teacher before the Purchase

No
Yes
No response
Total

Finally,

N

%

88
100
1
189

46 .5
52.9
.5
100.0

respondents were asked to indicate the

yearly budget allowed for each special education teacher
to purchase instructional software.

The majority of

respondents reported that the special education teacher
had a specific budget for purchasing software.

63
Interestingly enough, though, 22.8% of the respondents
said there was no budget limit for purchasing
instructional software.

However, the respondents

specified that, even without budgetary limitations,
purchasing depended on need, funding resources,
purchases.

and past

Nineteen respondents mentioned that they had

a supply budget, based on per-pupil allocation,

for

purchasing what teachers thought was most needed for the
classroom.

The responses to this survey item are

presented in Table 4.16.
Table 4.16.—

Special Education Teachers' Annual Budget
for Instructional Software

Value
$ 1.00 - $ 49.99
$ 50.00 - $ 99.99
$100.00 - $199.99
$200.00 - $500.00
No limitation
Others (specify)
Total

N
21
34
30
42
43
19
189

%
11.1
18.0
15.9
22.2
22.8
10 .0
100.0

Research Question 5
What are special education administrators'
perceptions concerning microcomputer use in special
education classrooms?
The respondents were asked to indicate their level
of agreement with four goals of instructional technology
in the special education classroom.

They responded to

each item using a five point Likert-type scale on which
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree,

3 = Undecided,

64

4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree.

A mean and standard

deviation were calculated for each item (see Table 4.
17).

The means ranged from 4.57 for item 3 (supplement

instruction) to 3.76 for item 5 (reward students for
good behavior).
Supplement to instruction received the highest
agreement rating.

Next was the use of microcomputers

for tutoring students on specific skills.
Implementation of the IEP had the next highest degree of
agreement.

Rewarding students for good behavior had

only a moderate degree of agreement,

in summary, the

special education administrators who participated in
this study were highly supportive of the instructional
use of microcomputer technology in special education
classrooms.
Table 4.17. —

Respondents' Agreement with Four Goals of
Instructional Technology in Special
Education Classrooms.

Item Statements

Mean

S.D.

Supplement Instruction
Tutor student on specific skills
Implement the IEP
Reward students for good behavior

4.57
4.46
4.03
3.76

.51
.62
.86
.97

1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Undecided

4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree

65
Research Question 6
To what extent is inservice training on
microcomputers provided to special education
teachers and how is it funded?
The respondents were asked whether special
education teacher(s) in their districts used any of the
following electronic information services: ACCESS,
SpecialNet, CompuServe, DIALOG, Dialcom, B R S , PRODIGY or
others.

They were to check all that applied.

The

majority of the respondents indicated that their
districts used ACCESS.
frequently.

SpecialNet was used second most

However, several respondents said,

"To my

knowledge, any current accessing of electronic
information services is done privately by individual
staff initiative," or "Probably a few utilize this, but
being done with private equipment and funds!

The

district is not currently providing access to these
services".

The responses are presented in Table 4.18.

Table 4.18. —

Electronic Information Services Used by
Special Education Teachers.
Number of responses

ACCESS
SpecialNet
PRODIGY
CompuServe
DIALOG
Dialcom
BRS
Other

104
39
13
5
1
1
1
14

66
With the advent of microcomputers in the classroom,
the training needs of educators have become a central
issue of many school systems across the country.
Authors of Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning
(U.S Congress, 1988) found that "the vast majority of
those now teaching or planning to teach have had little
or no computer education or training"

(p. 19).

Training

gives teachers the necessary skills to work the
technology, and education provides a vision of how to
work with it (Fulton, 1989).

Glenn and Carrier (1988)

also emphasized that technology education, and the
training that teachers need are not static but continue
as technology evolves.
District involvement in the support of inservice
training is an important indicator because it places the
emphasis on student learning through teacher
preparation.

Stasz and Winkler (1985) claimed that

teachers need incentives to stimulate and sustain their
motivation and interest in staff development.

Bailey

(1991a) also noted that effective training programs must
be planned by the staff, focused on actual classroom or
administrative uses of technology, sensitive to staff
members' personal needs and motivation, supported with
tangible incentives for teachers, and offered as an
ongoing process rather than a single event.
To determine the degree of teacher inservice
training on the use of microcomputers provided by school

67
districts in Michigan, respondents were asked to
indicate the percentage of special education teacher(s)
who had been trained to use microcomputers.

The

percentage of special education teachers who had been
given such training ranged from 0% to 100%, with a mean
of 69.05%.

Thus, a majority of districts had made a

commitment to training special education teachers to
implement microcomputer instruction.
respondent indicated,

In fact, one

"In my district, professional

staff who spend their own time taking 50 hours of
computer instruction, provided by the district, earn an
IBM computer with a printer.

Ninety-five percent of the

staff have responded favorably."

Hence, it appears that

incentive programs are effective in encouraging teachers
to attend inservice programs on the use of
microcomputers for instructional purposes.
In a third question concerning staff development,
respondents were asked to indicate, by percentage, how
special education teachers had been trained in the use
of microcomputers.
were listed.

Various types of training sources

The mean percentage for each training

source is shown in Table 4.19.

Each of the five

training sources was used to some extent, but the most
frequently used (60.6%) was inservice training within
the school district.

Next was inservice training within

the ISD (46%), followed by inservice training at higher

68
education institutions

(21%), training through private

consultants

(18%), and training at special computer

conferences

(16%).

The majority of respondents reported

that teachers had received training through multiple
activities.

For example, a respondent might have

responded by indicating that 30% of inservice training
was through the district, 15% of training was through
computer conferences, higher education institutions, and
private companies involved in technology training.
Table 4.19. —

Special Education Teachers Training
in the Use of Microcomputers

Training Sources

Mean Percentage

Inservice training with your district
Inservice training within your ISD district
Inservice training at higher e d . inst.
Outside private consultants
Special computer conferences

60.60
45.99
20.50
17.97
16.34

A single survey item dealt with funding for staff
training on microcomputers.

According to Toong and

Gupta (1982), the future of microcomputers in schools
may "critically depend" on the availability of funds,
but the current major constraints on public school
budgets are well known.

These constraints may be a

function of insufficient funding for most school
activities or a priority system for special education
that is not favorable to inservice training.

In this

study, respondents indicated that general education
budget allocations were the most important source of

69
funding for staff inservice training on microcomputers.
Training activities for special education teachers also
were funded in part by the special education budget.
Thus, there appears to be a high degree of collaboration
between the two educational programs.

This finding is

consistent with data reported by Hanley (1983), Cosden,
Gerber, Goldman, Semmel, & Semmel
al.

(1984), and Goldman et

(1987).

Table 4.20 --- Percentage of School's Budget for Staff
from Two Sources
Mean Percentage
General education budget
Special education budget

51.22
35.03

Research Question 7
What are administrators' concerns with regard to
inservice training in microcomputer technology for
special education teachers?
Policy considerations also include administrative
decisions to update teacher inservice training in
microcomputer applications.

The actual staff-

development activities are critical.

Effective training

programs must be planned by the staff and focused on
actual classroom applications.

To provide useful

information regarding staff-development activities,
respondents were asked what topics they thought should
be considered in providing inservice training for

70
special education teachers.

Nine applications were

listed, and respondents were asked to rate the
usefulness of each one, using a Likert-type scale
ranging from

1 = minimally useful to 4 = essential.

The mean rating for each item represented respondents'
concerns for inservice training on that application.
The mean and standard deviation for each application are
shown in Table 4.21.
Table 4.21 —

Special Education Administrator Concerns
for Inservice Training on Microcomputer
Applications

Training Activities

Mean

SD

Computer Assisted instruction (CAI)
Selection and evaluation of software
Introduction to computer application/
computer literacy
Computer Managed Instruction (CMI)
Word processing
Adaptive devices
Graphics
Electronic Information Services
Computer Programming (e.g. Basic, LOGO)

3.35
3.17
3.00

.64
.79
1.04

2.96
2.89
2.81
2. 37
2.12
1.79

.78
.89
.93
.84
.89
.91

Using the mean ratings shown in Table 4.21, it was
possible to group the applications into high-range
concerns, moderate-range concerns, and low-range
concerns.

High-range concerns included computer

assisted instruction (CAI), selection and evaluation of
software, and introduction to computer
application/computer literacy.

Moderate-range concerns

included computer managed instruction (CMI), word
processing, and adaptive devices for teacher training.

71
Low-range concerns Included microcomputer uses related
to graphics, electronic information services, and
computer programming.

Summary
This chapter contained the results of the data
analyses.

The source of data was survey questionnaires

completed by 189 special education administrators in
Michigan.

In the preceding pages, each research

question was restated, followed

by a presentation of the

data related to that question.

A summary of

the study,

including the major findings, is presented in Chapter V,
along with a discussion, and recommendations for
practice and for further study.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter V is contains a summary of the study, a
discussion based on the study findings, and
recommendations for practice and future research.
Summary
Despite the continued rapid increase in the
instructional use of microcomputers in special
education, at present, there is relatively little
information to guide planning efforts related to the
educational computing needs of special education
students in Michigan.

To accelerate the realization of

the promise of technology, a much greater investment in
determining such needs is required.
The researcher's purpose in conducting this study
was to determine the status of the instructional uses of
microcomputers in special education programs in public
schools throughout Michigan.

Areas of interest were (a)

the degree to which microcomputers are used for
instructional purposes in public schools,

(b) the

existence of policies concerning the instructional use
of microcomputers in terms of a technology plan and a
microcomputer committee,

(c) the nature of personnel
72

73
involvement in decisions to acquire hardware and
software,

(d) guidelines for purchasing software,

(e) inservice teacher training and support,
(f) special education administrators' perceptions
regarding the goals of instructional technology in
special education classrooms, and (g) special education
administrators'

concerns regarding the inservice

training needs of special education teachers.
Seven research questions were posed in the study,
and the researcher designed a survey to

gather the

necessary data to answer these questions.

The survey

consisted of 3 3 items related to various aspects of
microcomputer use in special education programs in
Michigan.
The population for this study included the 59 ISD
special education directors and 177 LEA special
education directors in Michigan during school year 199091.

The survey was distributed to all 236 of these

special education directors.

One hundred eighty-nine

usable survey were returned for an 80% response rate.
Because the researcher's overall purpose was to
describe the use of microcomputers in special education
programs, the primary statistical procedures employed
were frequency distributions, percentages, mean scores,
standard deviations,

t-tests and summary forms of

descriptive statistics.

The conventional .05 level of

significance was set for the t-test.
The major findings from this study were as follows
A majority of respondents reported that both
special and general education teachers used
microcomputers in their classrooms.
About one-third of the respondents reported that
their school districts had a full-time microcomputer
coordinator.

However, the districts with no technology

coordinator received assistance from a part-time
technology coordinator, data center personnel, REMC
staff, or a media specialist.
With regard to a technology plan, about 58% of the
respondents indicated that their districts had already
developed long-range technology plans for general
education programs.

Also,

34% of the respondents

indicated that their districts had special education
technology plans for special education programs.
A majority (89%) of the respondents reported that
special education technology plan was followed when
purchasing hardware.

However, 7 2% of the respondents

reported that the special education technology plan was
followed when purchasing instructional software.
Half of the respondents indicated that their
districts had a microcomputer committee to assist in
making decisions about purchasing hardware.

Various

categories of personnel were reported to be involved on
these microcomputer committees; teachers were most

75
frequently involved.

However, the respondents also

reported that principals, coordinators, librarians,
media specialists, special education administrators,
central office staff, and superintendents were involved
on the microcomputer committee.
School districts with a special education
technology plan had a higher percentage of teachers
using microcomputers in special education classrooms
than did districts without such a plan.

Also, school

districts with a technology plan had a higher percentage
of teachers using microcomputers in general education
classrooms.
About one-fifth of the respondents reported that
software purchases had to relate to the CORE curriculum
used in the district.

About one-third of the

respondents said that special education software
purchases had to relate to an IEP goal.

About one-half

of the respondents said that special education software
had to be reviewed by the teacher before it was
purchased.

Finally, the majority of respondents

reported that special education teachers had a specific
budget for purchasing software.
Special education administrators perceived that
microcomputers were used primarily to support
instruction.

Other uses,

in descending order of

agreement, included tutoring students on specific

76
skills, implementation of IEP goals, and rewarding
students for good behavior.
The percentage of special education teachers who
had been trained to use microcomputers ranged from 0% to
100% with a mean of 69.05%.
With regard to teacher training sources, the
findings indicated that inservice training within the
school district was the most common source employed.
I S D s , higher education institutions, and private
consultants also were involved in providing technology
training.
General education budget allocations were the most
important funding sources for inservice training.
Training activities for special education teachers also
were funded in part through the special education
budget.
The administrators'

highest concern with regard to

inservice training was computer-assisted instruction.
The next highest concern was with selection and
evaluation of software and introduction to computer
application/computer literacy.
Discussion
This study focused on reported instructional uses
of microcomputers in special education programs.

The

major findings provide important information for policy
makers and practitioners in special education.

77
An analysis of the findings indicates that the
instructional use of microcomputers is perceived to be
prevalent in special and general education programs in
Michigan.

That is, the instructional use of

microcomputers in special and general education programs
is reported to be as widespread as anticipated by the
authors of Power 0n£ New Tools for Teaching and Learning
(U.S.

Congress,

1988).

Although this study is limited to self-reporting
survey questionnaire when compared with other research
designs, such as, experimental or survey that use
observation and/or interview,

it is believed that the

availability and sophistication of computer technology
in society in general is impacting education and will
continue to do so.
With regard to technology plans, about 58%
districts had already developed long-range technology
plans for general education programs, Whereas 34% had
technology plans specific to special education.

Also,

the special education technology plans were generally
included as part of a technology plan in general
education.
In school districts with a technology plan, a
higher percentage of teachers in special education and
general education classrooms were using microcomputers
than in districts without such a plan.

Although no

attempt was made to determine the actual use of

78
computers by students, or subject areas in which they
are used, or the amount of time students had access to
microcomputers, this finding corroborates the work of
Witthuhn (1985), Foster (1988), and Megeau (1991) that
the most successful districts have a comprehensive and
formal technology plan.

It is apparent that the most

important decision a school district can make with
regard to the instructional use of microcomputers is to
develop a district technology plan.
Both special and general education personnel were
involved in decision making with regard to the purchase
of hardware.

In general, the acquisition of hardware

was characterized by collaboration across educational
programs and across personnel categories in the
district.

Further, training activities for special

education teachers were partially funded through special
education budgets but were also being conducted as part
of general district inservice programs.

Thus, there

appeared to be a high degree of collaboration between
the two educational programs, consistent with the data
reported by Hanley (1983), Cosden, Gerber, Goldman,
Semmel, & Semmel (19 84), and Glodman et al.

(1987).

It is apparent that general and special education
professionals can establish useful collaborations on
important educational matters.

79
Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning (U.S.
Congress,

1988), a U.S. government document, indicated

that, despite the desire of many teachers to use
computers and other interactive technologies in their
teaching, most educators have not received sufficient or
appropriate training to enable them to use technology
effectively.

Training gives teachers the necessary

skills to work the technology, and education provides a
vision of how to work with it (Fulton, 1989).

Also,

Glenn and Carrier (1987) emphasized that technology
education and the training of teachers are not static
but should continue as technology evolves.

Thus,

training for teachers should be seen as an ongoing
requirement for professional growth.
Policy related considerations include
administrative decisions implemented to update the
teacher inservice training in microcomputer application.
Effective training programs should include input by the
staff and should be focused on actual classroom
applications

(Church & Bender, 1989).

There is little

agreement among proponents of teacher inservice training
as to what computer applications should be addressed in
inservice training programs
Hoth, 1985).

(Fellmy & Nicholson,

1985;

For many years, computer-literacy programs

have focused on teaching technical computer programming.
Many questions have been raised regarding this emphasis
on computer programming rather than on instructional

80
applications of computers (Diem, 1984).

Researchers

have indicated a need for inservice instruction that
supports teachers who want to teach about computers
(Moore, 1984) and those who want to use the technology
for instructional purposes

(Rogers, Moursand, & Ence,

1984).
Few surveys of special education administrators
have been conducted to determine in what types of
applications teacher inservice training is needed within
the special education context.

The findings from such

research would provide important insights regarding
teacher inservice needs in special education.

Data from

this survey indicated that the administrators' concerns
for inservice training needs included computer-assisted
instruction, selection and evaluation of software,
introduction to computer application/computer literacy,
computer managed Instruction, word processing and
adaptive devices.

It is apparent from the findings of

this study that the special education administrators are
aware of the potential of CAI.

Also, regardless of the

type of program, much research remains to be done to
determine the most effective ways to promote teachers'
skill and interest in using computers.

More intensive

and specific types of training would appear to be
necessary to provide teachers with the basic skills
required for using of microcomputers in instruction, as

81
well as the confidence derived from hands-on experience
(Church et al. 1989).

It is apparent from the findings

of this study that the inservice of teachers on uses of
microcomputers must be on-going, fully supported by
local and intermediate school districts, and focused on
practical applications for teachers.

Recommendations
The researchers's overall purpose in conducting
this study was to determine the status of the
instructional use of microcomputers in special education
programs in public schools throughout Michigan.

With

the previously stated findings and discussion in mind,
the researcher makes the following recommendations for
practice and further research.
Recommendations for Practice
1.

The Michigan State Board of Education needs to

evaluate the present policies and practices of ISDs and
LEAs, especially in relation to the delivery of
educational computing.
2.

ISDs and LEAs need to develop plans for

implementing microcomputer technology so that
microcomputers can be used most efficiently in
education.

82
3.

ISD and LEA central administrators should

appoint a computer resource person whose responsibility
would be to coordinate the implementation of computer
programs throughout the district.

The computer resource

person would provide or organize microcomputer training
for the school district staff and provide the staff with
suggestions regarding hardware and software.

This would

be the liaison among central administrators, principals,
teachers, and outside computing resources.

He or she

also would keep these educational personnel informed of
the status of microcomputer education in the school
district.
4.

Central administrators can best encourage

microcomputer education by providing an adequate budget
for microcomputer technology and professional computer
support staff.
5.

ISDs and LEAs need to offer teachers a variety

of inservice classes in various applications and at all
levels of computing expertise. Also, the ISD should
provide microcomputing consulting services to its local
school districts.
In their capacity, ISDs would be able to advise
school districts of successful microcomputer programs.
They should coordinate the microcomputer efforts of
local school districts and with other ISDs, establish a
centralized microcomputer courseware review system,
develop a software library, offer microcomputer and

83
software laboratory services to school districts, and
give schools an opportunity to purchase microcomputers
at a low cost through a bid process.
LEAs also need to offer inservice teacher training
on microcomputers.

They should seek creative approaches

to such training, along with practical applications of
microcomputers in both general and special education
classrooms.

The need for

such inservice activities is

great and will remain so in the future.
6.

A staff-development training committee should

gather information about microcomputer technology and
its effect on student achievement and attitudes, teacher
performance, and long term student performance.
Recommendation for Further Study
The recommendations in this section focus on some
of the current needs for better use of existing research
and for the initiation of collaborative efforts to
extend research into needed areas.
1.

A study should be conducted to determine what

is the actual practice in the schools concerning
instructional use of microcomputers changes that have
occurred in microcomputer use since the present study
was completed.

Future investigations should focus on

the actual use of computers by students, including the
frequency of time microcomputers are used by individual
students, the subject areas in which they are used, and

84
the availability of microcomputers to individual
students.
2.

A statewide research network should be

established to document and disseminate information on
current effective practices being used by school
districts in implementing microcomputers into the
classroom.

Schools need to be informed and updated

about effective instructional uses of microcomputers.
3.

Research is needed to determine the kind of

microcomputer training necessary to help teachers become
effective users of instructional computing.
4.

ISDs, colleges, and universities should

investigate additional methods of providing inservice
training in instructional microcomputing to meet the
increasing demand for such training; they should also
cooperate in developing in services activities.
Consideration should be given to inservice activities
involving a variety of microcomputers and topics of
varying complexities.
5.

Research should be conducted to develop a

microcomputer software evaluation system.
6.

Research is needed on the roles of various

school professionals related to computer technology.
For example, school leaders, as well as teachers,
computing consultants, school boards, and governmental
agency computing personnel need to know their role and

85
responsibilities with regard to computer technology.
7.

A computer research center needs to be

established, perhaps at the higher education institution
level, that will coordinate and disseminate
microcomputer research, software, and information about
successful microcomputer programs that will work in
specific educational situations.
8.

The special education administrators in this

study rated inservice training in CAI as very useful.
Thus, in future research, it would be desirable to
explore the attitudes of special education administrator
toward the use of CAI in special education classrooms.
9.

Further research should be conducted to

determine the actual amount of time microcomputers are
used in general and special education classrooms,
students'

access to microcomputers, the content areas in

which microcomputers are used, and other related topics.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
LETTER OF HUMAN SUBJECT APPROVAL

86
M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY
OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH

EAST LA N SIN G • M IC H IG A N • 48824.1046

A N D DEAN O F TH E G R A D U A T E SCHO O L

May 20, 1991

Yeon Hong Min
674 Wayland
East Lansing, MI
RE:

48823

A SURVEY OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL USE OF M I C R O C O M P U T E R T E C H N O L O G Y IN SPECIAL
EDUCATION CLASSROOMS IN MICHIGAN, IRB#91-237

Dear Ms. Min:
The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review.
The proposed research
protocol has been reviewed by another c o m m ittee member. The rights and w e l fare
of human subjects appear to be protected and y o u have approval to c o nduct the
research.
You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one c a l e n d a r year.
If you
plan to continue this project beyond one year, please m a k e p rovisions for
obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to M a y 15, 1992.
A n y changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by UCRIHS
prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be n o t ified p r o m p t l y of any
problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects
during the course of the work.
T hank you for bringing this project to m y attention.
help, please do not hesitate to let me know.
5 1*n r o Y a l v

David
vid E. Wright, Ph.D., CChair
h air(^
(J
iversity Committee on Researc
University
Research Involving
Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
DEW/deo
cc:

Dr. Donald Burke

If I can be of any future

APPENDIX B
FIELD-TEST LETTER

87
M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ED U C A T IO N • D EPA R T M E N T O F C O U N S E L IN G ,

EAST LA N SIN G ■ M IC H IG A N

• 48824-1034

ED U CA T IO N A L PSY C H O L O G Y A N D SPECIAL E D U C A T IO N

(Date)
(Name and Title)
(Address)

Dear ___________ :
I am in the process of constructing a survey instrument for
my dissertation.
The topic I have chosen is "A Study of
the Instructional Use of Microcomputer Technology in Special
Education Classrooms." This study is supported and conducted
with the cooperation of the Michigan Department of Education,
Special Education Service.
As part of this study, you have been selected as one
potential candidate to judge my instrument. I am confident
that your input will be crucial in shaping the final
instrument.
I sincerely need your help in completing this stage of my
doctoral program at Michigan State University. Would you
please take a few minutes to fill out this draft copy?
Please note on the survey any comments that you have. At the
end of the survey note how long it took you to complete the
instrument.
_________, your assistance in this important inquiry will be
most valuable and greatly appreciated. Please use the
enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope to return the draft
survey and your comments by April 26. If you need to reach
me, you may call me Collect at (517) 337-3889.
Thanks again for your assistance!
Sincerely yours,

Ye^n Hong Min

APPENDIX C
SUPPORT LETTER

88

D i s a b i l i t y R e s e a r c h S y s t e m s , In c .
evaluation, r e s e a r c h a n d training se rv ices

Dear Colleague:

The purpose of this letter is to indicate my support of the research
conducted by my advisee, Yeon Hong Min. Her research proposal is
entitled " A Survey of The Instructional Use of Microcomputer
Technology in Special Education Classrooms in Michigan".
This study is supported and conducted with the cooperation of the
Michigan Department of Education, Special Education Service. The
purpose of this study is to gather research-based data that might
provide guidance to decision makers in the field of special education
in Michigan. Thus, the enclosed study can make an important
contribution to this fields.
As chair of Ms. Min's doctoral advisory committee, I seek your
cooperation in her research efforts. The few minutes necessary for
your participation will be most helpful, appreciated and essential for
completion of Ms. Min's research.
If you have any questions concerning this research project, please
contact me at 517-351-3484.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

Donald Burke, Professor

APPENDIX D
THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND COVER LETTER

M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE O F E D U C A T IO N • D EPARTM ENT O F CO U N SELIN G .

EAST LA N SIN G ■ M IC H IG A N ■ 48824-1034

ED U C A T IO N A L PSY CH O LO G Y A N D SPECIAL ED U C A T IO N

Date
Name and Title
Address

Dear
I would appreciate your participation in a study
entitled, "A Survey of The Instructional Use of
Microcomputer Technology in Special Education Classrooms
in Michigan."
This study is supported and conducted
with the cooperation of the Michigan Department of
Education, Special Education Service. The attached
questionnaire was developed to study the instructional
use of microcomputer technology in special education
classrooms.
Would you please assist me by taking approximately five
minutes to complete the attached questionnaire and
return it in the self-addressed, stamped envelope by May
24, 1991.
The information you provide will be held in
strict confidence.
Your responses will not be seen by
anyone except the researcher. The identification number
on the survey is to identify whether the survey was
returned, therefore eliminating the need for a follow-up
letter.
A summary of the results of this study will be available
upon completion. If you would like a copy of the
results, please indicate this by checking
"Yes" on last
page of the survey.
If you have any questions, you may
reach me at 800-292-1606.
Your prompt response will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

t

Yean Hong Min
Doctoral Candidate Michigan State University

90

Survey Instrument
PART I:
1.

What percentage of your special education teachers use microcomputers in their classroom?
(Circle number)
1
2
3
4
5

2.

NONE
1 - 25% OF CLASSES USE COMPUTERS
26-50% OF CLASSES USE COMPUTERS
51 - 75% OF CLASSES USE COMPUTERS
ALL CLASSES USE COMPUTERS

Does your district have a full time technology coordinator? (Circle number)
1

4.

NONE
1 - 25% OF CLASSES USE COMPUTER
26 - 50% OF CLASSES USE COMPUTER
51 - 75% OF CLASSES USE COMPUTER
ALL CLASSES USE COMPUTERS

What percentage of the general education classrooms in your school district use microcomputers?
(Circle number)
1
2
3
4
5

3.

INSTRUCTIONAL USE OF MICROCOMPUTERS

No

PROCEED TO #4

2

YES-— PROCEED TO #6

Does anyone have this responsibility in your district? (Circle number)
1

NO

2

YES (SPECIFY):_______

5.

What percentage of time is the above person assigned to this responsibility? _______ %

6.

Does your district have a technology plan? (Circle number)
1

7.

YES

NO

PROCEED TO #10

2 YES

PROCEED TO #8

Do you use the special education technology plan when special education instructional staff make
a request to purchase instructional software? (Circle number)
1

9.

2

Does your district have a special education technology plan? (Circle number)
1

8.

NO

NO

2

YES

Do you use the special education technology plan when special education instructional staff make
a request to purchase hardware? (Circle number)

1

NO

2

YES

91

10.

Does your district have a committee for purchasing hardware? (Circle number)
1

NO

PROCEED TO #12

2

Y E S------ PROCEED TO #11

11. Who is involved on your district’s committee? (Circle all that apply)
1
2
3
4
5
6

PRINCIPAL
TEACHERS
COORDINATOR
LIBRARIAN OR MEDIA SPECIALIST
SPECIAL EDUCATION ADMINISTRATOR
OTHERS (SPECIFY):________

12. Who is involved in your district’s decision to purchase hardware? (Circle all that apply)
1
2
3
4
5
6

PART II:

1.

NO

NO

YES

2

YES

Does special education software have to be reviewed by the teacher prior to purchase? (Circle number)

1 NO
4.

2

Does special education software have to relate to an IEP (Individualized Education Plan) goal?
(Circle number)

1
3.

PURCHASING INSTRUCTIONAL SOFTWARE

Does special education software have to relate to the CORE curriculum used in the district?
(Circle number)

1
2.

PRINCIPAL
TEACHERS
COORDINATOR
LIBRARIAN OR MEDIA SPECIALIST
SPECIAL EDUCATION ADMINISTRATOR
OTHERS (SPECIFY):________

2

YES

What is the budget that you allow for each special education teacher to purchase instructional software
over the school year? (Circle number)

1 $ 0.00-$49.99
2 $ 50.00 -$99.99
3 $100.00-$199.99
4 $200.00 -$500.00
5 NO LIMITATION

92

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following comments concerning the use of instructional
technology in special education classroom.
In your view, what should be the goals of instructional technology in your special education classroom:
(Circle you response)
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

5.

Tutor students on specific skills

SD

D

?

6.
7.

Implement the IEP
Supplement instruction
Reward students for good behavior

SD

D
D

?
?

D

?

8.

PART HI:
1.

SD
SD

Agree

Strongly
Agree

A
A

SA
SA

A
A

SA
SA

TEACHER SUPPORT AND INSERVICE TEACHER TRAINING

Does your special education teacher(s) use any of the following electronic information services?
(Circle all that apply)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

ACCESS
SpecialNet
CompuServe
DIALOG
Dialcom
BRS
PRODIGY
Other electronic bulletin board/Mail system:(Specify)

2.

Indicate the percentage of your special education teacher(s) that have been trained to
use microcomputers. ______ %

3.

Indicate, by percentage, how your special education teachers have been trained to use microcomputers.

%
%
%
%
%
4.

Inservice training within your district
Inservice training within your intermediate district
Inservice training at higher education institution
Outside private consultants
Special computer conferences

What percentage of the school’s budget for staff training on microcomputers falls into the following
categories?
.%
.%

general education budget
special education budget

93

Using the categories below, what should be considered when inservice training is provided for your special
education teachers? (Circle your response)
Minimally
useful

Moderately
useful

5.

Introduction to computer application/
Computer literacy

1

6.

Computer Assisted Instruction

7.

Computer Managed Instruction

1
1

8.

Selection and evaluation of software

1

Word processing
Graphics
Computer Programming

1

2

1
1

2
2

1
1

2
2

9.
10.
11.

Very
useful

Essential

2

3

4

2

3
3

4

3
3
3

4
4
4

3

4

3

4
4

2
2

4

(e.g., Basic, LOGO, etc.)
12.
13.

Adaptive devices
Electronic Information Services

PART IV:
1.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Title of your current position: (Circle number)
1

2.

ISD DIRECTOR

2 LEA DIRECTOR

3

OTHER___________

What is your gender? (Circle number)
1

3.

3

FEMALE

2

MALE

How many total years of experience do you have as a special education administrator? (Circle number)
1
2
3
4
5

0 - 5 YEARS
6 - 1 0 YEARS
1 1 - 1 5 YEARS
1 6 - 2 0 YEARS
OVER 20 YEARS

4.

How many special education students are enrolled in your school district? ________

5.

How many full time special education teachers are in your district?_________

6.

What is your school district classification? (i.e. Class A, Class B, etc.)____________

I f you w ou ld like a sum m ary o f this study results p le a se indicate belo w :
Yes, I w ant the results o f this study sen t back to me
No, I d o n ot w ant the results sent back to me.

Thank you for completing the survey

APPENDIX E
FOLLOW-UP LETTER

94
M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE O F E D U C A T IO N • D EPA RTM EN T O F C O U N S E L IN G .

EAST LA N SIN G ■ M IC H IG A N • 48824-1034

ED U C A T IO N A L P S Y C H O L O G Y A N D SPECIAL E D U C A T IO N

(Date)
(Name and Title)
(Address)

Dear
Last week a survey questionnaire was mailed to you
concerning the Instructional Use of Microcomputers in
Special Education Classrooms.
If you have already
completed and returned the survey, please accept my
sincere thanks, if not, and you still have the
questionnaire, may I ask for your kind cooperation by
taking a few minutes from your valuable time to complete
and return it to me in the envelope provided by
May 28, 1991.
If by some chance you did not receive the questionnaire,
or it has become misplaced, please call me at 800-2921606 and I will put another one in the mail to you
immediately.
Thank you!
Sincerely yours.

(JjLcvy

Ye/n Hong Min

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bailey, G. D. (1991).
Making staff development work.
Electronic Learning, 11(2), 12.
(a)
Bailey, G. D. (1991).
Districtwide technology
integration.
Electronic Learning, 10.(8), 16-24.
(b)
Bakke, T. W.
(1984).
Optimal approaches to
microcomputer implementation in the schools.
American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral
sciences, Palo Alto, California, 37
Bancroft, B. (1985). A c h i l d 1s present in a futuresoriented society: how selected Michigan public
elementary schools provide instructional computing
opportunities for their p u p i l s . (Doctoral
Dissertation).
Bass, G . , & Perkins, H. W.
(1984).
Teaching critical
thinking skills with CAI. Electronic Learning.
4(2), 32-34, 96.
Becker, H. J.
(1982).
Microcomputers in the Classroom:
Dreams and Realities. Baltimore, MD: Center for
Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins
University.
Becker, H. J.
(1985, July).
The Second National
Survey of Instructional Use of School Computers:
A Preliminary Report. Paper presented at the World
Conference on Computers in Education, Norfolk VA.
Becker, H . , & Schur, S.
(1986).
The advantages of
using microcomputer-based assessment with
moderately and severely handicapped individuals.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 8(2),
53-57.
Bell, T. H.; & Elmquist, D.
(1992).
Technology: A
catalyst for restructuring schools.
Electronic
Learning. JL!(5), February, 10-11.
Bennett, R.
(1982).
Applications of microcomputer
technology to Special Education.
Exceptional
Children. 49(2), 106-113.
95

96
Bennett, R.
(1986).
A framework for studying the use
of computers in special education.
Journal of
Special Education Technology. 8(2), 44-52.
Bennett, R.
(In press).
Planning and Evaluating
Computer Education Programs. Columbus, OH: Charles
E. Merrill.
Blackhurst, A. & MacArthur (1986).
Microcomputer use in
special education personnel preparation programs.
Teacher Education and Special Education. 9.(1),
27-36.
Blaschke, C.
(1986).
Technology for special education:
A national strategy.
T.H.E. Journal. 77-82.
Blum, V. (1982).
Evaluation of Educational Software for
Microcomputers: An Analytical Approach. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York.
Bjoum, W. (1982). A plan for introducing microcomputers
into instruction.
The Computing Teac h e r , 9.(7),
52-53.
Borg, W . , & Gall, M . D. (1973).
Educational Research.
New York: David McKay Company.
Bork, A.
(1984).
"Computer futures for education."
Creative Computing. November, 178-180.
Brinker, P. (1984).
The microcomputer as perceptual
tool: search for systematic learning strategies
with handicapped infants.
Special Services in
the School. 1, 21-26.
Bruder, I. (1989, October).
Ninth annual survey of the
States.
Electronic Learning, £(2), 22-28.
Budoff, M . , & Hutten, L. R. (1982).
Microcomputers in
special education: promises and pitfalls.
Exceptional Children. 49(2), 123-128.
Budoff, M., Thormann, J., & Gras, A.
(1984).
Microcomputers in Special Education. Cambridge,
MA: Brookline Books.
Burke, R. L.
(1982).
CAI sourcebook.
Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall.

Englewood

97
Burmbaugh, K. E.
(1983).
MECC: A statewide model for
educational computing.
In M. Grady, & M. Grady &
J. Gawronski (Eds.), Computers in Curriculum
and Instruction (pp. 64-73).
Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision of Curriculum
Development.
Burnette, J.
(1990).
Assistive Technology Design
in Special Education. Issue Brief 2. The
ERIC/OSEP Special Projection on Interagency
Information Dissemination. Published by The Council
of Exceptional Children.
Campbell, D . , Peck D . , Horn, C . , & Leigh, R.
(1987).
Comparison of computer-assisted instruction and
print drill performance:
A research note, ECTJ,
95-103
Chambers, J, & Bork, A. (1980).
Computer Assisted
Learning in U.S. Secondary/Elementary Schools. New
York, NY: Association for Computing machinery.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED202461)
Chang, L. & Osguthorpe, R.
(1987).
An evaluation
system for educational software: a selfinstructional approach.
Educational Technology.
June 15-19.
Church, G . , & Bender, M . (1989).
Teaching with
Computers: A Curriculum for Special Educators.
College-Hill Press, A Division of Little, Brown and
Company Inc.
Computer literacy: A survey of initiatives for teachers
and students across the States. (1984).
Education
Week.
October 24 p. 11
Connors, F., Caruso, D . , & Detterman, D. (1986).
Computer-assisted instruction for the mentally
retarded.
In N. Ellis (Ed.).
International
Review of Research in Mental Retardation. (Vol.
14). New York: Academic Press
Cosden. M . , Gerber, M. M . , Goldman, S. R . , Semmel, D.,
Semmel, M. I. (1984).
Survey of microcomputer
access and use by mildly handicapped students
in Southern California (Tech.
Rep.
No. 4).
Santa
Barbara, CA: University of California, Santa
Barbara.

98
Cory, S.
(1983, November).
4-State model of
development for full implementation of computers
for instruction in a school system.
The Computing
Teacher, 1-4.
Davidove, E.
(1987, July).
Evaluation and selection of
courseware development software.
Educational
Technology. 34-37.
Davis, B.
(1985).
IEP Management Programs. Northwest
Regional Educational Lab., Portland.
(ERIC
documents code ED 266 610)
Diem, R. A.
(1984).
Preparing for the technological
classroom: Will we meet the challenge?
Educational Technology, 24.(1), 13-15.
Doerr, C. (1979).
Microcomputers and the 3R's.
Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden Book Company, Inc.
Dugan, S.
(1986, November).
Education of the
Handicapped Amendments of 1986.
Education
of the Handicapped: Special Supplement. Capitol
Publication, Inc.
Arlington, VA.
Fellmy, W. R . , & Nicholson, E. W.
(1985).
School
priorities in the information society.
Educational
Technology. 2J5(11), 48-50.
Foreman, K . , & Steinhoff, C.
(1983).
Networking for
microcomputer management.
In D. Bonnette (Ed.).,
Proceedings of NECC/5 National Educational
Computing Conference (pp. 4-6).
Baltimore, MD:
Computer Society P r e s s .
Foster, D.
(1984).
Computers simulation in tomorrow's
school.
Computers in the Schools, .1(3), 81-89.
Foster, D. (1988, April).
long-Range planning.

Technology: implications for
Educational Technology. 7-14.

Friedman, S., & Hoffmeister, A.
(1984).
Matching
technology to content and learners: A Case Study.
Exceptional Children, 51, 130-134
Fulton, K. (1989, March).
Technology training for
teachers: A federal perspective.
Educational
Technology. March, 12-17
Gay, L. R. (1981).
Educational Research. Charles E.
Merrill Publishing Co.
Columbus, OH.

99
Glenn, A, & Carrier, C.
(1989, March).
A perspective
on teacher technology Training.
Educational
Technology. 7-11.
Glenn, A., & Carrier, C.
(1988).
A Review of the
Status of Technology Training for Teachers. NTIS
Order No. PB 88-194 766/AS
Goldman, S. R . , Semmel, D. S., Cosden, M. A., Gerber, M.
M . , & Semmel M. I.
(1987).
Special education
administrators' policies and practices on
microcomputer acquisition, allocation, and access
for mildly handicapped children: interfaces with
regular education.
Exceptional Children. 53(4) .
330-339.
Goldberg, M. P.
(1981).
Perceptions of resourceroom
teachers of the hearing impaired and parents with
respect to the individualized program conference
(Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University
Teachers College, 1980).
Dissertation Abstract
International, 41, 42882A.
Good, C. V.
(1954).
The Methodology of Educational
Research. Edited by A. S. Varr and De. Skates.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Gray, P. J.
(1984, October).
The use of policy
analysis in setting district policy on
microcomputers.
Educational Leadership, 42, 72.
Grady, M.
(1983).
Issues and implications.
In
M. Grady & J. D . Gawronski (Eds.), Computers in
Curriculum and Instruction (PP. 22-27).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Hall, G. (1981, Winter).
Issues related to the
implementation of computers in classrooms."
Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science
Teaching. 14-19.
Hanley,
T. V.
(1983).
Microcomputers in Special
Education: Organizational Issues. Mountain View,
C A . : SRA Technologies and Cosmos Cooperation.
Hanley, V. T . , & Yin, K. R. (1984, February).
Microcomputers in Special Education: Finding and
Recommendations from a Current S t u d y . Paper
presented at Technology and Special Education
Conference, Reno, Nevada.

100

Hanley, T. V., Appell, L. S., & Harris, C. D.
(1988).
Technological innovation in the context of special
education systems: A qualitative and structured
research approach.
Journal of Special Education
Technology, 9.(2) 98-108.
Hannnaford, A. E. & Taber, F. M.
(1982). Microcomputer
software for the handicapped: Development and
evaluation.
Exceptional Children. 42(2), 137-142.
Hannaford, A. E.
(1983).
Microcomputers in special
education: some new opportunities, some old
problems.
The Computing Teacher. 1 0 . 11-17.
Hofmeister, A.M.
perspective.

(1982).
Microcomputers in
Exceptional Children. 49(2) , 115-121.

Hofmeister, A. M.
(1984).
Microcomputer Applications
in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Hofmeister, A. M, Engelmann, S., & Carnie, D.
(1986).
Observations form the development and field testing
of an instructional videodisc program.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 7(3)
42-46.
Hopkins, C. D.
(1976). Educational Research:
A Structure for Inguirv. Columbus, OH: Charles E.
Merrill Publishing Co.
Hoth, E.
(1985).
Debunking myths about computer
literacy for teachers.
Educational Technology,
25(1) 37-39.
Hunter, B.
(1984, February).
Modeling education on the
real world.
Educational Computer Magazine. 26-27.
Jenkins, M. W.
(1987).
Effect of a computerized
individual education program (IEP) writer on time
savings and quality.
Journal of Special Education
Technology. £(3), 55-66.
Johnson, R.
(1983).
Microcomputers.

An Educator's Guide to
Pontiac, MI: Oakland Schools.

Justiz, M. J.; & Mason, W. S. (1984).
A changing NIE:
Facilitating new partnerships.
Phi Delta K a p p a ,
December 277-80.
Kehrberg, K. T.
(1987).
Microcomputer software
development: New strategies for a new technology.
AEDS Journal, 13(1), 102-110.

101

Keresztenyi, S. B.
(1986).
Uses of computer technology
In education programs for mentally retarded,
learning disabled, and emotionally disturbed
students in New Y o r k . (Doctoral Dissertation,
Teachers College, Columbia university, 1986).
Kolich, E.
(1985).
Microcomputer teaching with the
learning disabled: A review of the literature.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18(7), 428-431.
Krivacska, J.
(1987).
Computerized IEP management
systems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the national association of school psychologist,
New Orleans.
(ED289325).
Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C. & Cohen, P. A.
(1980).
Effectiveness of computer-based college teaching: A
meta-analysis of findings.
Review of Educational
Research. 50., 525-544.
Kulik, J., Bangert, R. L . , & Williams, G. W.
(1983).
Synthesis of research on computer-based
instruction.
Educational Leadership, 4 1 ,
September, 19-21.
Kulik, J . A . , Kulik, C. C. & Bangert-Drowns, R. E.
(1985).
Effectiveness of computer-based education
in elementary schools. Computers in Human Behavior.
1(1) , 59-74.
Lee, W.
(1987) . Microcomputer courseware production and
evaluation guidelines for students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
20(7), 436-438.
Lehrer, R., & deBernard A.
(1987).
Language of
learning and language of computing: The perceptuallanguage model.
Journal of Educational Psychology,
79(1), 41-48.
Lehrer, R. (1986). Logo as a strategy for developing
thinking? Educational Psychologist, 2 1 (1 & 2),
121-137.
Lepper, M. (1985). Microcomputers in education.
American Psychologist, 40, 1-18.
Lipman, D. (1986). A look at computer
Closing the G a p . 5(3), P. 15

managed IEPs.

102

Lindsay, P.
(1986).
Computers in Special Education:
Using Technology to make up the Difference. In:
The proceedings of the Canadian Symposium special
education. 27P.
Lockheed, M . ; Hunter, B . ; Anderson, R . ; Beazley, R . ; &
Etsy, E.
(1983). Computer Literacy: Definitions
and Survey Items for Assessment in Schools.
MacArthur, C . , Haynes, J., & Malouf, D. (1986).
Learning disabled students' engaged time and
classroom interaction: The impact of computer
assisted instruction.
Journal of Educational
Computing Research. 2, 189-198.
Maddux, D.C. (1984).
Educational microcomputing: The
need for research.
Computers in the Schools. 1,
35-42.
Mageau, T.
(1991).
Backbone networks: The heart of the
technology plan.
Electronic Learning. October,
16-21.
Mageau, T. (1992).
Integrating an ILS: Two teaching
models that work.
Electronic Learning. 11(4) ,
16-22.
Maher, C. A., & Bennett, R. E.
(1984).
Planning and
Evaluating Special Education Services. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Malone, T. W.
(1981). What Makes Things Fun to Learn:
A Study of Intrinsically Motivating Computer G a m e s .
Palo Alto CA: Xerox Palo Alto Research.
Malouf, D., Morariu, J., Coulson, D., & Maiden, V.
(1989).
Special education teachers' preferences
for sources of software evaluation information,
Journal of Special Education Technology, £(3), 144155.
Margalit, M . , & Shulman, S.
(1986).
Microcomputers in
special education: Renewed expectations for
solutions to chronic difficulties.
Exceptional
Child, 32(3) 99-205.
Market Data Retrieval, Inc. (1984).
Microcomputers
in Schools, 1983-84. Westport, CT: Author.
Mayer, C. L.
(1982).
Educational Administration
and Special Education: A handbook for School
Administrators. Allyn and Bacon, Boston,
Massachusetts.

103
McCarthy, R.
(1992, February).
Decisions, decisions
what computers should you buy? Electronic
Learning. 11,(5), 18-24.
Michigan Department of Education, & Michigan Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
(1983).
Principals1
Planning Guide for Microcomputers. Printed by
Birmingham, Michigan, Public School.
Michigan State Board of Education.
(1984).
Better
Education for Michigan Citizens: A Blueprint
for A c tion.
Michigan State Board of Education.
(1987).
Essential
Goals and Objectives for Computer Education.
Moore, G . , Yin, R . , & Lahm, E.
(1986).
Robotics,
artificial intelligence, computer simulation:
Future application in special education.
T.H.E Journal. 14(1), 74-76.
Moore, M. L. (1984).
Preparing teachers to teach about
computers and computing.
The Moni t o r , 2J3(5,6),
19-21.
Moursund, D. (1981).
School administrator's
introduction to instructional use of computers.
The Computing Teacher. 8, 8-11.
National Governors' Association Center for Policy
Research and Analysis
(1986).
Time for
Results: The Governors' 1991 Report on Education.
Washington, D.C:
Neill, S. B.
(1983).
How To Plan for Effective
Instructional Use of Microcomputers. Tips for
Principals from NAS S P . National Association of
Secondary School Principals, Reston, VA.
Papert, S. (1980).
Mindstorms: Children. Computers
and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.
P.L. 91-142 (1975).
Education for All Handicapped
Children Act, Sec. 4(a), (19).
Preece, J.
(1984).
Selecting CAL packages: Helping
teachers to recognize quality software.
Computer
Education. February, 20-21.
Price, M . , & Goodman, 1.
(1980).
Individualized
education programs: A cost study.
Exceptional
Children. 46 446-454.

104
Ragsdale, R. G.
(1982).
Computers In the Schools;
A Guide to Planning. Toronto:
The Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education.
Rhodes, A. E.
(1963).
Better Education Through
Effective Intermediate U n i t s .
Washington, D . C . :
National Education Association,
Department of
Rural Education,
pp. 3-4.
Roberts, N. (1984).
Testing the world with simulations.
Educational Computer Magazine. 6, 28-29.
Rogers, J . , Moursand, D, & Ence, G.
(1984).
Preparing
precollege teachers for the computer age.
Communications of the A C M , 195-200.
Rosenberg, S. D.
(1986).
Special and individual:
Computers meet the needs of the handicapped.
TechTrends. November-December, 19-24.
Ryan, L. B., & Rucker, C. N.
(1986).
Computerized vs.
noncomputerized individualized education programs:
Teachers' attitudes, time, and cost.
Journal of
Special Education Technology, 8(1), 5-12.
Sabatino, D. A. (1981).
Are appropriate educational
programs operationally achievable under mandated
promises of P.L. 94-142? Journal of Special
Education. 15,
9-18.
Sax, G. (1979).
Principles of Educational and
Psychological Measurement and Evaluation.
Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA.
Semmel, I., Cosden, A., Semmel, S., & Kelemen, E.
(1984).
Training special education personnel for
effective use of microcomputer technology:
Critical needs and directions.
Special Services
in the School. I, 63-82.
Sheingold, K . , Kane, J., Endreweit, M . , & Billings, K.
(1981).
Study of Issue Related Implementation of
Computer Technology in Schools. Cambridge: Bank
Street College of Education.
Sheinglod, K., Kane, J., & Endreweit, M.
(1983,
November).
Microcomputer use in schools:
Developing a research agenda.
Harvard Education
R evi e w . 5 3 . November, 412-58.