GSE 550 Educational Technology Wendy Davies

1. Incorporating Traditional Tools with New Technology:The Reaction of Computer Generated Organizers for students with Special Needs GSE 550 Educational Technology Wendy Davies

2. Times have changed…have you?

3. Introduction • Technologyischanging the way in whichweeducateour students • Teachers need to change the way they instruct with these advancements • Technology is an asset for the future

4. Special Needs Students • Different learning profiles • More computer savvy than led on • How do we as teachers create the best learning environment?

5. Educational Significance • Technology is here to stay! • Mixing old with the new • No need to reinvent the wheel but to renovate!

6. Personal Interest • Resource teacher • Concept mapping with my students • Interest in Ausubel`s theory meaningful learning

7. Research Questions • What are the benefits to using technology in the classroom with SN students? • What are the students reactions in using technology? • What are the reactions of using Computer Generated Organizers as opposed to hand-written graphic organizers for students with SN?

8. Technological Tools • Cmap • Computer-generated Atlas • Others include Frayer model, cycle diagrams, etc. All can be created for free online

9. History of Visual Organizers • Ausubels theory of learning (1960`s) • Novak`s introduction of concept maps • A versatile tool for many reasons

10. A Classroom Tool • Facilitates the learning process, it is “the use of lines, arrows, and a spatial arrangement that describe text content, structure, and key conceptual relationships” (Darch & Eaves, 1986) • Holistic perspective of the unit

11. Computer Generated Organizers (CGO) • "The repetition of using the graphic organizer and software helps to get the information processed into my head" (Boon, Fore & Rasheed, 2007). • Using CGO, students essays were well planned out and more organized. • CGO improved both the quantity and quality of the work being produced by students with SN.

12. Computer Generated Organizers (CGO) • After using CGO`s, 89% said they felt it was an effective tool for them. • Students used CGO`s but also incorporated pictures off the internet to go with each step instruction for their recipe

13. Conclusion • Students were positive about the idea of using technology • CGO`s increased motivation and self-efficacy • In the case of CGO`s, felt more confident in their own work • Students felt CGO`s were an effective tool for them after using them

14. Limitations • Small sample sizes • Technology is new and innovative. This could have sparked students interests for better results • Other unknown factors could have played a part

15. Future Research • The topic of CGO`s has not been studied extensively, yet it is a tool that is available to our students for free. More research needs to look at how to incorporate them into the leanring environment.

16. References Biklen, D., & Schubert, A. (1991). New Words The Communication of Students with Autism. Remedial and Special Education, 12(6), 46-57. Blair, R. B., Ormsbee, C., & Brandes, J. (2002, March). Using writing strategies and visual thinking software to enhance the written performance of students with mild disabilities. In No childleft behind: The vital role of rural schools, 22nd Annual National Conference Proceedings of the American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES). Reno, Nevada: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. Boon, R. T., Fore, C., & Rasheed, S. (2007). Students' Attitudes and Perceptions toward Technology-Based Applications and Guided Notes Instruction in High School World History Classrooms. Reading Improvement, 44(1), 23-31. Brahier, D. J. (2005). Teaching secondary and middle school mathematics (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc. Brown, M. (2011). Effects of Graphic Organizers on Student Achievement in the Writing Process. Online Submission. Darch, C., & Eaves, R. (1986). Visual display to increase comprehension of high-school learning-disabled students. The Journal of Special Education, 20, 309–318.

17. References Douglas, K. H., Ayres, K. M., Langone, J., & Bramlett, V. (2011). The Effectiveness of Electronic Text and Pictorial Graphic Organizers to Improve Comprehension Related to Functional Skills. Journal Of Special Education Technology, 26(1), 43-56. Driscoll, M. P. (2004). Psychology of learning for instruction. (Second edition). Needham Heights, MA.: Allyn-Bacon, Inc Horton, S., Lovitt, T., & Slocum, T. (1988). Teaching geography to high school students with academic deficits:Effects of a computerized map tutorial. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(4), 371-379. Novak J. D. & Cañas A. J. (2008). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them (Technical Report No. IHMC CmapTools 2006-01). Pensacola, FL: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Sturm, J. M., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2002). Effects of Hand-Drawn and Computer- Generated Concept Mapping on the Expository Writing of Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 17(2), 124-39. Unzueta, C. H., & Barbetta, P. M. (2012). The Effects of Computer Graphic Organizers on the Persuasive Writing of Hispanic Middle School Students with Specific Learning Disabilities. Journal Of Special Education Technology, 27(3), 15-30.

18. Thank you for your attention! 