Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities - Division on ...

ecause all of the students would be required
to rewrite the multiplication problems on the
FLY Pen paper. Additionally, the teacher
<strong>in</strong>dicated that one dislike she had with us<strong>in</strong>g
the technology was that she always had to
rem<strong>in</strong>d the students to use their pentop computer.
If all of the students <strong>in</strong> the class were
able to use a FLY Pen then it was easier for
the teacher to rem<strong>in</strong>d all of the students at
once, <strong>in</strong>stead of <strong>in</strong>dividual students. For this
study, only three students <strong>in</strong> the classroom
were selected as participants due to these students
hav<strong>in</strong>g the same disability classification
<strong>and</strong> a similar math level; however, future studies
may seek to exam<strong>in</strong>e the effects of us<strong>in</strong>g
the FLY Pens <strong>in</strong> a classroom where all of the
students have access to us<strong>in</strong>g the pens. Another
limitation was the student’s access to
us<strong>in</strong>g multiplication tables dur<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>tervention
phase. Future studies may want to
exam<strong>in</strong>e the effect of the FLY Pens for
learn<strong>in</strong>g multiplication with students who do
not use multiplication tables as part of the
class.
Future replication studies should be conducted
to better assess the effects of the FLY
Pen as an <strong>in</strong>structional tool <strong>in</strong> the area of
mathematics for students with mild <strong>in</strong>tellectual
disabilities as well as for students with
other types of disabilities. Only one student <strong>in</strong>
the current study had a secondary disability
(communication disorder), <strong>and</strong> it would be of
<strong>in</strong>terest to exam<strong>in</strong>e the effectiveness of FLY
Pens between groups of students with different
types of disabilities. Furthermore, Leap-
Frog developed a variety of software that can
also be used as <strong>in</strong>structional tools with the
FLY Pens. Future studies may want to exam<strong>in</strong>e
how the FLY Pen can provide assistance
<strong>in</strong> other academic areas or mathematical content
areas for students with disabilities (i.e.,
spell<strong>in</strong>g, writ<strong>in</strong>g, algebra, Spanish). In addition
to future studies that focus on students
with disabilities, it would be of <strong>in</strong>terest to exam<strong>in</strong>e
how this type of technology might be
useful for students without disabilities <strong>in</strong> general
education sett<strong>in</strong>gs.
References
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2006). Applied
behavior analysis for teachers. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Beaton, A., Mullis, I., Mart<strong>in</strong>, M., Kelly, D., & Smith,
T. (1996). Mathematics achievement <strong>in</strong> the middle
school years: IEA’s Third International Mathematics
<strong>and</strong> Science Study (TIMSS). Boston: International
Association for the Evaluation of <strong>Education</strong>al
Achievement.
Bouck, E. C., Okolo, C. M., & Courtad, C. A. (2007).
Technology at home: Implications for children
with disabilities. Journal of Special <strong>Education</strong> Technology,
22(3), 43–56.
Butler, F. M., Miller, S. P., Lee, K., & Pierce, T.
(2001). Teach<strong>in</strong>g mathematics to students with
mild-to-moderate mental retardation: A review of
the literature. Mental Retardation, 39, 20–31.
Cawley, J., Parmar, R., Fley, T. E., Salmon, S., & Roy,
S. (2001). Arithmetic performance of students:
Implications for st<strong>and</strong>ards <strong>and</strong> programm<strong>in</strong>g. Exceptional
Children, 67, 311–328.
Cooke, N. L., Guzaukas, R., Pressley, J. S., & Kerr, K.
(1993). Effects of us<strong>in</strong>g a ratio of new items to
review items dur<strong>in</strong>g drill <strong>and</strong> practice: Three experiments.
<strong>Education</strong> & Treatment of Children, 16,
213–234.
Dihoff, R. E., Brosvic, G. M., Epste<strong>in</strong>, M. L., & Cook,
M. J. (2005). Adjunctive role for immediate feedback
<strong>in</strong> the acquisition <strong>and</strong> retention of mathematical
fact series by elementary school students
classified with mild mental retardation. The Psychological
Record, 55, 39–66.
Ellis, M. W., & Berry III, R. Q. (2005). The paradigm
shift <strong>in</strong> mathematics education: Explanations <strong>and</strong>
implications of reform<strong>in</strong>g conceptions of teach<strong>in</strong>g
<strong>and</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g. The Mathematics Educator, 15(1),
7–17.
Gibson, J. (2005). Smart toys. The Sydney Morn<strong>in</strong>g
Herald, Retrieved September 29, 2008, from
http://www.smh.com.au/news/icon/smart-toys/
2005/11/30/1133311090876.html
Grise, P. S. (1980). Florida’s m<strong>in</strong>imum competency
test<strong>in</strong>g programm<strong>in</strong>g for h<strong>and</strong>icapped students.
Exceptional Children, 47, 186–193.
Harper, G. F., Mallette, B., Maheady, L., Bentley,
A. E., & Moore, J. (1995). Retention <strong>and</strong> treatment
failure <strong>in</strong> classwide peer tutor<strong>in</strong>g: Implications
for further research. Journal of Behavioral
<strong>Education</strong>, 5, 399–414.
Horton, S. V., Lovitt, T. C., & White, O. R. (1992).
Teach<strong>in</strong>g mathematics to adolescents classified as
educable mentally h<strong>and</strong>icapped: Us<strong>in</strong>g calculators
to remove the computational onus. Remedial
<strong>and</strong> Special <strong>Education</strong>, 13, 36–60.
Houch<strong>in</strong>s, D. E., Shippen, M. E., & Flores, M. M.
(2006) Math assessment <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>struction for students
at-risk. In R. Colarusso & C. O’Rourke
(Eds.), Special education for all teachers (pp. 313–
356). DuBuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Jaspers, M. W. M., & Van Lieshout, E. C. D. M.
(1994). The evaluation of two computerized <strong>in</strong>-
FLY Pen Math / 379