Compare the effectiveness of direct training and multimedia education to improve six different type of Dysgrphia

Authors
D. Mohamadi 1
Y. Radbakhsh 2
1 Assistant professor of Persian literature Semnan University, Semnan, Iran
2 PhD student of Persian language and literature Semnan University, Semnan, Iran
Abstract
This study aims at comparing the effectiveness of direct instruction and multimedia instruction on six type of Dysgraphia. In this study the authors answered three questions. Does direct instruction of six types reduce misspelling? Does multimedia education reduce misspelling in just six types? Does the effectiveness of direct teaching and learning effectiveness multimedia reduce misspellings together in six different categories? The Method of this study is experimental with pretest and posttest and control group. After preparing the necessary instrument for this research including instruction spelling software and spelling test Karimi and Wechsler intelligence scale children- review (WISC- R), 39 female students in the third grade of elementary school were selected based on multistage sampling method and were divided into three groups. The first group was exposed to independent variable of direct instruction, the second group was exposed to independent variable of multimedia instruction and the third one-control group-received no instruction. After collecting the spelling scores from all three groups in the pretest and posttest, the data were analyzed by SPSS software univariate analysis of variance. The result indicated that direct instruction and multimedia instruction was significantly effective on dysgraphia improvement. Also effectiveness direct instruction was more effective than multimedia instruction on some of spelling mistakes and multimedia instruction also effectiveness was more effective than multimedia instruction on some of spelling mistakes.

Keywords

  • ابراهیمی، زهرا (1383) . مقایسۀ تأثیر رسانه تعاملی (cd )وغیرتعاملی (فیلم) برسرعت، دقت و پایداری یادگیری ریاضی دانش‌‌آموزان دختر راهنمایی منطقۀ 17 شهر تهران درسال تحصیلی 82-81. پایان­نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی. دانشکدۀ روان­شناسی و علوم تربیتی.

  • میردهقان، مهمین، وحید نجاتی و گلناز گنجیان، (1395). «تفاوت عملکرد حافظۀ کاری و سوگیری توجه در واژگان زبان اول و دوم در فارسی­آموزان چینی­زبان». جستار‌های زبانی. ش 7 (29). صص 197-213.

  • خرامیده، زهرا (1385). مقایسۀ تأثیر آموزش به کمک چندرسانه‌‌ای تعاملی ورسانه غیرتعاملی بر افزایش سرعت ودقت یادگیری درس علوم زیستی دانش‌‌آموزان دختر پایۀ اول دبیرستان منطقۀ 19 شهر تهران در سال  تحصیلی 85-84. پایان­نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.دانشکدۀ روان­شناسی وعلوم تربیتی.

  • سیف، علی­اکبر (1388). روان­شناسی پرورشی نوین: روان­شناسی یادگیری و آموزش.ویراست ششم. تهران: دوران.

  • شکوهی یکتا، محسن و اکرم پرند (1389). ناتوانی‌های یادگیری. چ دوم. تهران: تیمورزاده.

  • شهیم، سیما (1371). «کاربرد مقیاس هوش وکسلر کودکان (WISC-R) در ایران». پژوهش‌های روا­ن­شناختی. ش 1. صص 28 - 40.

  • فردانش، هشمت (1382). مبانی نظری تکنولوژی آموزشی. تهران: سمت.

  • کرد نوقابی، رسول (1386). آموزش مستقیم به همراه نظریه­ ها، الگوها و راهبردهای آموزشی. تهران: دیدار.

  • حسینی معصوم، سید محمد و همکاران (1395). «فرایند تحول طنین‌معنایی به معنای ضمنی در زبان فارسی؛ یک بررسی درزمانی». جستار‌های زبانی. ش 7 (29). صص 17- 38.

  • کریمی، بهروز (1389). مقایسۀ اثربخشی آموزش مستقیم و آگهی واج شناسی و ترکیبی بر اختلال دیکته. پایان­نامۀ دکتری. دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی. دانشکدۀ روان­شناسی و علوم تربیتی.

  • مرعشی، علی اکبر (1381). «چگونه با دشواری­های خط فارسی کنار بیاییم؟». تکنولوژی آموزشی. دورۀ17. ش 137. ص 77.

  • ملکیان، فرامرز و آذر آخوندی (1387). تأثیر چند رسانه‌‌ای آموزشی در درمان اختلال املاء دانش‌‌آموزان. پایان­نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد تکنولوژی آموزشی. کرمانشاه: دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی.

  • نریمانی، اشرف (1373). بررسی ومقایسۀ میزان فراوانی ودرصد شیوع اختلال زبان نوشتاری در دانش‌‌آموزان دختر و پسر پایه‌های دوم و سوم شهر تهران. پایان­نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد. تهران: روان­شناسی تربیتی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی.

  • نورمحمدی، فرحناز (1375). تأثیرراهبردهای شناختی ورایانه­ای در کارآمدی نوشتاری نمونه­ای از کودکان نادرست نویس. پایان­نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد. رشتۀ  کودکان استثنایی. تهران: دانشکدۀ روان­شناسی دانشگاه تهران.

    • Adams, G. and D. Carnine (2003). “Direct instruction”. eds. H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris and S. Graham. Handbook of Learning Disabilities (pp. 403–416). New York: Guilford Press.

    • Adams, Gl. and S. Engelmann (2011). Research on Direct Instruction: 25 Years beyond Disbar. Seattle, WA: Educational Achievement systems.

    • Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). “A functional taxonomy of multiple  representations”. Computers and Education. No. 33 (102). Pp. 131- 152.

    • Allbritten. D.; R. Mainers and  D. Ziegler (2004).“Will student with disabilities be scapegoated for school failures?". Educational Horizons. No. 82 (114). Pp. 153- 600.

    • Ann, L. (2011). “Direct instruction spelling ,two Hong Kong project school.” Psychology International. No.11 (24). Pp. 45-50.

    • Beatty, K. (2005). Teaching and Researching Computer-assisted Language Learning. Beijing. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press sage.

    • Bender, W. (2001). Learning Disabilities. Characteristic, Identification and Thatching Strategies. Boston: Allyn and bacon.

    • Bishop, M.  and W. Cates (2006). Theoretical Foundation for Sound's Use in Multimedia Instruction to Enhance Learning [on Line]. Retrieved from: www. Springer link Com/Index/Lv11v173tj.

    • Brigham, R. and M. Brigham (2001).Current Practice Alerts: Mnemonic Instruction. Reston, VA: Division for Learning Disabilities and Division for Research of the Council for Exceptional Children. Boston: Allyn and bacon.

    • Bulgren, J. A.  et al. (2000). “The use and effectiveness of analogical instruction in diverse secondary content classrooms”. Journal of Educational Psychology. No.16 (42). Pp. 426–441.

    • Carnine, D. et al., (2004). Direct Instruction Reading (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

    • Chuan-Yen, C. (2012). “Comparing the impact of a problem based Computer-assisted instruction and the direct instructive teaching method on student science achievement”. Journal of Science Educational Technology. No. 10(40). Pp.  147-153.

    • Dian, K.; K. Richard and M. Nancy (2005). “Special education and direct instruction: an investigation specificity and stability". Applied Psyconol Linguistics. No. 22 (63). Pp. 383-414.

    • Dye, G. A. (2000). “Graphic organizers to the rescue! helping student’s link- and remember information". Teaching Exceptional Children. No. 32. Pp. 72–76. Education 33 (89). Pp. 131- 152.

    • Gabel, H. (2001). Electronic Information Source and Evaluation Guide. London: Bowkersaur.

    • Jack, M. F., S. Lynn  and A. B. Mareia (2001). Learning Disability from Identification to Intervention. A Division of Guilford Publication, Inc.72spring Street. New York. Ny, 10012.

    • Janet, W. Lerner (1997). Learning Disabilities: Theory, Diagnosis, and Teaching strategies. 7ed. Houghton, Mifflin.

    • Janice, F. R.; E. T. William  and T. G. (2007). “Explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonemically based decoding skill as an intervention strategy for struggling reader in whole language classroom”. Read Writ. No. 21 (80). Pp. 346-369.

    • Jennifer, B.  and M. Margaret (2010). “The effectiveness of direct instruction for teaching language to children with autism spectrum disorders: identifying materials”. J Autism Dev Disorder. No. 39 (76). Pp. 75-380.

    • Jones, L. and  J. Plass (2002). “Supporting listening comprehension and acquisition in French with multimedia annotations”. The Modern Language Journal. No. 86(4). Pp. 546-561.

    • Jones, L. and  J. Plass (2004). “Testing L2 vocabulary recognition and recall using pictorial and written test”. Language Learning and Technology. No. 8(3). Pp. 122-143.

    • Joyce, B., M. Weil  and E. Calhoun (2000).Models of Teaching. (6th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 

    • Kirk, S. A. (1963). “Behavioral diagnosis and remediation of learning disabilities”. Proceedings the Conference on the Problems of the Perceptually Handicapped child. Evanston, IL: Fund for the Perceptual Handicapped Child.

    • Margaret, M. Flores. and Kaylor. Maria(2007).The Effects of a Direct Instruction Program on the Fraction Performance of Middle School Students At – risk for Failure in Mathematics. Boston: Allyn and bacon.

    • Mayer, R. E. (1997). “Multimedia learning: are we asking the right questions?". Educational Psychologist. No. 32 (64). Pp. 1–19.

    • Mayer, R. E. (2002). “Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: an example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction”. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. No. 89.Pp. 55-71.

    • Mayer, R. E. (2003). “The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media”. Learning and Instruction. No. 13 (24). Pp. 125–139.

    • Mayer, R. E. (2005). “Cognitive theory of multimedia learning”. ed. R. E. Mayer. The Cambridge and Book of Multimedia Learning (Pp. 31-48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Miartella, R.C. and  K. M. Waldron – soler (2005). “Language for writing program evaluation”. Journal of Direct Instruction. No. 5 (16). Pp. 81-96.

    • Moats, L. C. and G. R.  Lyon (1993). “Learning disabilities in United States: advocacy, science and the future of the field”. Jornal of Learning Disabilities. No. 26 (54). Pp.282-294.

    • Nagata, N. (2009(. “The effectiveness of computer-assisted interactive glosses". Foreign Language Annals. No. 32 (4). Pp. 469-479.

    • Owens, S. H.; L. D. Fredrick  and M.E. Shipen (2004). “Training a paraprofessional to implement spelling mastery and examining its effectiveness for student with learning disability”. Journal of Direct Instruction. No. 4 (15). Pp. 153- 172.

    • Paivio, A. (2006). “Dual coding theory and education”. Conference on "Pathways to Literacy Achievement for High Poverty Children". The University of Michigan School of Education.

    • Plass, J. L. et al. (2003). “Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities". Computers in Human Behavior. No. 19 (38). Pp. 221–243.

    • Richard, T.  et al. (2005).“Brain activation during language takes contracts in children with and without dyslexia: inferring mapping processes and assessing response to spelling instruction”. Educational and Child Psychology. No. 22 (44). Pp. 62-80.

    • Richards, T. L. et al. (2006). “Individual FMRI activation in orthographic mapping and morpheme mapping after orthographic or morphological spelling treatment in child dyslexics". Journal of Neurolinguistics. No. 19 (42). Pp. 56–86.

    • Shannon, Hayter. et al. (2007). “The use of a modified direct instruction flashcard system with two high school students with developmental disabilities”. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. No. 19(22). Pp. 409–415.

    • Simpson, R. G. (2010). “Effectiveness of visual imagery versus rule-based strategies in teaching spelling to learning disabled student”. Researching In Rural Education. No. 7 (21). Pp. 61-70.

    • Susan, G. Magliaro et al. (2005). “Direct instruction revisited: a key model for instructional technology”. ETR and D. No. 53 (100). Pp. 41 -55.

    • Svenconis, D. J. and  S. Kerst (2011). “Investigating the teaching of second-language vocabulary through semantic mapping in a hypertext environment”. CALICO Journal. No.12 (2/3). Pp. 33-57.

    • Torgesen, J. K. (1997). “The role of nonspecific factors in the task performance of learning disabled children: a theoretical assessment”. Jornal of Learning Disabilities. No.10. Pp. 27-34.

    • Watkins, C. L. and  T. A. Slocum (2004). The Components of Direct Instruction. Eds.N. E. Marchland- Martello, T. A. Slocum and R. C. Martello. Introduction to Direct Instruction. No. 42 (89). Pp. 28–65.

    • Watkins, C. L. (2003). “The components of direct instruction”. Journal of Direct Instruction. No. 3 (8). Pp. 75-110.

    • Yeh, Y. and C. Wang (2003). “Effects of multimedia vocabulary annotations and learning styles on vocabulary learning”. CALICO Journal.No.21(1). Pp.131-144.

    • Zahide, Vildirim., M. Year. and M. A. Ozden (2000). “Comparison of hypermedia learning and traditional instruction on knowledge acquisition and retention”. Journal of Educational Research. No.94 (4). Pp. 207.



Language Related Research
Volume 8, Issue 3
July and August 2017
Pages 265-290