04190nam a22004812u 4500001000800000005001700008007001400025008004100039035002000080037001900100040002700119091000800146100002300154245010600177260006800283300001000351500014900361520236600510533008102876650003102957650002102988650003403009650003403043650002603077650002603103650003603129650003503165650002003200650003203220650003403252650003003286650003003316650002903346650002503375650002903400650002003429650003303449655004003482655003003522655003603552856007803588984004203666558968220110823221210.0he u||024||||080220s1995 xxu ||| bs ||| | eng d 9(ericd)ED390379 aED390379bERIC aericdbengcericddMvI amfm1 aKirkland, C. Eric.10aUsing Advance Organizers with Learning Disabled Studentsh[microform] /cC. Eric Kirkland and Others. a[Washington, D.C.] :bDistributed by ERIC Clearinghouse,c1995. a22 p. aERIC Note: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Francisco, CA, April 18-22, 1995).5ericd aIn view of the dramatic increase in the use of television in the classroom, this study examines whether television captioning, technological enhancements to captioning like highlighting key concepts, and the presence or absence of other "advance organizers" in the classroom affect the comprehension and preferences of students with learning disabilities. Four teachers developed 15 lessons plans, each covering a different science topic. The eighth grade science curriculum was used as a guide, and all lessons used a common structure: goal, objectives, key concepts, vocabulary, advance organizer, and cognitive and affective measures. The lessons were presented to 317 students, 68 of which were identified as having special educational needs. Research focused on post-presentation tests in student comprehension and student reaction to the different types of captioning--standard, edited, or highlighted--and to the presence or absence of advance organizers. Data analysis revealed that: (1) neither variable particularly affected the general education students; (2) the comprehension of special education students, however, was adversely affected by the presence of advance organizers and by the use of edited captions; and (3) on the other hand, the overall highest performance came when advanced organizers were combined with highlighted captioning. The responses suggest that: (1) students in general reported a preference for standard captions over the other two types; (2) special education students gave higher ratings for the captioning benefit than did general education students; (3) for special education students there was a significant correlation between how interesting they felt the video was and the presence of an advance organizer; (4) students overall gave higher interest ratings to videos that were preceded by an advance organizer; (5) students typically rated videos without captions more interesting than videos with captions; (6) students rated videos without captions easier to understand than videos with captions. The report concludes that although captioning may still be seen as a valuable adjunct to classroom video, it may not be able to overcome learning fluctuations caused by, among other things, differences in the nature of the advance organizer used. Eleven figures illustrate the data. (Contains 39 references.) (BEW) aMicrofiche.b[Washington D.C.]:cERIC Clearinghouseemicrofiches : positive.17aAdvance Organizers.2ericd17aCaptions.2ericd07aClassroom Environment.2ericd07aCognitive Measurement.2ericd17aComprehension.2ericd07aData Analysis.2ericd07aEducational Improvement.2ericd17aEducational Television.2ericd07aGrade 8.2ericd07aJunior High Schools.2ericd17aLearning Disabilities.2ericd07aSpecial Education.2ericd07aStudent Attitudes.2ericd07aStudent Reaction.2ericd07aTables (Data)2ericd07aTeaching Methods.2ericd07aTesting.2ericd07aVideotape Recordings.2ericd 7aNumerical/Quantitative Data.2ericd 7aReports, Research.2ericd 7aSpeeches/Meeting Papers.2ericd41uhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED390379 aANLcmc 2253 ED390379d77000000395175