Background
Steen Larsen’s “What is the Quality in the Use of Technology for Children with Learning Disabilities?” discusses important issues relating the use of technology in teaching children with learning disabilities. The need for basic pedagogical considerations is stressed and the impact of the computer on the learning process is introduced relative to the factors of learner control, motivation, feedback types, graphics, and screen design. Specifically, Larsen analyzes the use of computer-assisted programs with speech feedback. While the idea of analyzing the use of computer assisted programs in teaching speech to children with learning disabilities is compelling, there are problems with Larsen’s argument. The following paper will focus on two main areas of concern: division of citations and discussion of primary sources.
Division of Citations
Difficulties with Larsen’s argument lie in the type of sources used and how Larson uses sources to support his argument. First, the reference page is misleading. There are a total of 49 cited sources listed on the reference page, all from academic journals. However, Larsen only uses two primary sources within his argument. Other sources listed on the reference page are secondary sources, mostly further studies that the reader can refer to. As a result, this is misleading to the reader. The reference page needs to be divided into two sections, references and further studies. Overall, the reference page hinders the reader’s ability to divide primary sources from secondary sources and, in tern, limits Larsen’s ability to support his premise.
Discussion of Primary Sources
Examining Larsen’s two primary sources illustrates flaws in his argument. First, Larsen refers to Marc R. Lepper and David Green’s “Undermining Children’s Intrinsic Interest Extrinsic Reward: A Test of the ‘over justification’ Hypothesis” within his examination of motivation factors. Larsen presents the possibility of giving students immediate feedback, specifically motivation reward systems that are found in educational software. He argues that motivation is based on “achieving meaningful personal goals, rather than on external incentives like grades, which can even undermine or destroy the personal engagement in many students, particularly when it concerns younger or less advanced children” (122). Larsen quotes Lepper and Green’s article to support his claim, however referring to the original article reveals a flaw in the support. Lepper and Green notes that “the quite limited manipulation employed in this study, involving a symbolic reward not unlike those routinely employed in a classroom, was sufficient to produce significant differences in the children’s subsequent behavior in a natural preschool classroom” (136). The weakness in the support lies in the detail; Larsen does not present the type of environment in which Lepper and Green’s study was conducted. Lepper and Green’s research supports motivation factors by conducting studies focusing on learning in the classroom. Larsen misleads the reader by applying Lepper and Green’s findings to learning through the computer. The problem lies in the presentation of two different views of teaching, teaching through a computer environment and teaching in a classroom environment. Thus, Larsen uses Lepper and Green’s article to support his theories on motivation factors used in learning through a computer environment. However, further examination of the primary source used reveals the underlying flaw. Larsen is applying a study conducted in a completely different environment, which can alter motivation factors.
The second flaw with Larsen’s argument lies in the use of Victor vann Daal and Aryan van der Leij’s “Computer-based Reading and Spelling Practice for Children with Learning Disabilities”. Larsen analyzes studies on reading disabilities, in terms of how educational technology can be used in the training of children with learning disabilities. Specifically, Larsen examines methods of providing on-line training of children with learning disabilities through using computerized speech feedback. Two types of feedback are used: “whole-word” feedback and “segmented word” feedback. Larsen comments, “Findings support the view that feedback types where children have to do some of the constructive mental work themselves (like fusing the present word segment into a whole word) are more efficient than feedback types where the final solution is given without any request of mental construction from the children” (126). Larsen uses direct quotes that support his claim, however Larsen leaves out an essential consideration. Vann Daal and van der Leij’s article further notes, “It should, however, still be researched whether the computer should deliver the sounds of the letters as they are typed by the student, because the grounds of consonants may be especially distorted when presented in isolation” (194). Where Larsen uses vann Daal and van der Leij to support his claim, he does not note that the article indicated that further research in needed on the delivery of computerized sounds, specifically when and how they are presented. Again, the lack of detail undermines Larsen’s claim. The omission of the concept of the delivery of sounds illustrates that Larsen did not consider the depth of the original research. Examining vann Daal and van der Leij’s article further undermines Larsen’s claim.
Conclusion
Larsen’s text focuses on the impact of the computers on the learning process of children with learning disabilities, but is undermined by his presentation of the reference page and use of primary sources. The design of the reference page is misleading to the reader. At first glance, the article appears to be support by 49 different sources. After further examination it is evident that there is not a clear division between primary sources and secondary sources. Further examination of primary sources illustrates Larsen’s misuse of concepts. His lack of detail hinders his ability to support his claims. Within each use of the primary articles, Larsen does not consider major elements presented in the original articles that could alter his claim. Thus, the flawed presentation and use of sources undermines Larsen’s argument.
End of Page
Last modified: