Quality programming for learning-disabled students : a comparison of microcomputer-assisted IEPS, manual-assisted IEPS, and teacher written IEPS

• Main Author: Haines, Gretchen C.
• Format: Others
• Language: English
• Published: W&M ScholarWorks 1986
• Subjects: Special Education and Teaching
• Online Access: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd/1539618675; https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1885&context=etd

The purpose of this study was to determine which IEPs are of greater quality for learning-disabled students: teacher-written IEPs (those developed without the aid of microcomputers or manuals of goals and objectives); manual-assisted IEPs (those developed with the aid of manuals of goals and objectives); or microcomputer-assisted IEPs (those developed with the aid of both manuals of goals and objectives and microcomputers). This study investigated the question: What effect does the use of microcomputers and manuals of goals and objectives have upon the quality of IEPs developed for learning-disabled students?;The sample consisted of 120 IEPs of students categorized as learning-disabled by the North Central Regional Education Sevice Agency (RESA 7) of West Virginia. Forty of the IEPs were teacher-written, forty of the IEPs were manual-assisted, and forty of the IEPs were microcomputer-assisted. Three trained raters examined and evaluated, individually, all of the IEPs involved in the study with regard to legal requirements, relevance, and clarity using the Checklist For Documenting Appropriateness of the IEP.;A statistical analysis of the data collected regarding each hypothesis revealed the following findings: (1) A t test indicated that the microcomputer-assisted IEPs in this study received a significantly higher mean total score (p < .01) on the Checklist For Documenting Appropriateness of the IEP than did the teacher-written IEPs in this study. as a result, the null hypothesis (that there was no difference in quality between microcomputer-assisted IEPs and teacher-written IEPs as evaluated using the Checklist For Documenting Appropriateness of the IEP) was rejected. (2) A t test indicated that the manual-assisted IEPs in this study received a significantly higher mean total score (p < .01) on the Checklist For Documenting Appropriateness of the IEP than did the teacher-written IEPs in this study. as a result, the null hypothesis (that there was no difference in quality between manual-assisted IEPs and teacher-written IEPs as evaluated using the Checklist For Documenting Appropriateness of the IEP) was rejected. (3) A t test indicated that the microcomputer-assisted IEPs in this study received a significantly higher mean total score (p < .01) on the Checklist For Documenting Appropriateness of the IEP than did the manual-assisted IEPs. as a result, the null hypothesis (that there was no significant difference in quality between manual-assisted IEPs and microcomputer-assisted IEPs as evaluated using the Checklist For Documenting Appropriateness of the IEP) was rejected.