Date of Award

8-1984

Degree Name

Doctor of Education

Department

Special Education and Literacy Studies

First Advisor

Dr. Elizabeth Patterson

Second Advisor

Dr. Alonzo Hannaford

Third Advisor

Dr. Abraham Nicolaou

Fourth Advisor

Dr. Howard Poole

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the teaching effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) with the effectiveness of traditional instruction of braille transcription for sighted persons. Since the traditional method (TM) of teaching and learning braille transcription requires a great deal of time for both instructor and student, it was hoped that computer-assisted instruction would be as efficacious as the traditional method while shortening time requirements for instructor and student. A review of the literature revealed that computer-assisted instruction has been successfully used in teaching many subjects including languages, providing immediate feedback and reducing learning time. In studies where CAI was found less effective than traditional methods, it is hypothesized that the use of more than one measure of student achievement may provide more accurate comparisons of CAI vs. TM.

Three research hypotheses were based on the assumption that using computer-assisted instruction for learning braille transcription would lead to the same or better achievement of braille skills and involves less time expenditure for both student and instructor. Twenty-seven sighted university students volunteered to take a six-lesson braille transcription course. The subjects were randomly assigned to either the computer-assisted or traditional method of instruction. The students in the CAI group used The Braille Training Program (Ponchillia & Holladay, 1983) with a microcomputer to learn braille transcription while subjects in the TM group were given parallel instruction via lecture/textbook format.

Data were collected on: (1) student achievement as measured by number of errors on braille transcription tests, (2) the time it took students to complete the course as measured by self-reports, and (3) the time it took the instructor to conduct the course(s).

The results showed no significant difference in the achievement of either group, while amount of time required of both student and instructor using CAI was greatly reduced, thus supporting the literature.

Access Setting

Dissertation-Open Access

Share

COinS