Instant Experts & False Authorities are such remarkable people: "They get so great a return of conclusion from the most trifling input of fact" (with thanks to Mark Twain).

Why do many people appear bright until they speak?

This is the one -- perhaps the only -- website that directly and honestly addresses the silent conspiracy of ignorance. Here is where research and proof replace fiction and dogma; where science resolutely replaces myth; where truth and fact replace fraud and fantasy.

The specific focus of this website is the False Authority Curriculum. Silently and gradually this invidious bookless curriculum continues to assault uncaring or undisciplined minds with a relentless onslaught of pseudo-knowledge.

The specific focus of this webpage involves the advantages of and prerequisites for using computer-based instruction with the mentally learning handicapped.

The Genuine Authority Basis for this website and webpage (in case you are querulous!):

The authority basis of this page is the following: (1) More than 25 years working with the mentally learning handicapped -- specifically, (a) institutionalized mentally retarded individuals (in Perth/Australia, upstate New York, and Delaware); (b) public school-based mentally retarded, including the once-called "educable" and "trainable" (in Smithtown, Long Island; near Rochester, New York; in Delaware; and in Philadelphia; (c) high functioning autistic (in Perth and in New York City and on Long Island); (d) low functioning autistic (in Perth, in New York City, on Long Island); (e) severely emotionally disturbed (Australia, New York, Long Island, Philadelphia).
      (2) Scholarships and fellowships supported Masters and Post-Masters degrees in the area of special education, single-subject research, and instructional design. (3) Federal research grant awarded to fund study of discrimination learning problems with autistic students. (13% of doctoral student grants submitted were funded that particular year.) (4) Publications in major scholarly journals in the area of computers and the mentally learning handicapped. (5) Dozens of workshops and presentations conducted across the United States, Australia, and in New Zealand. The focus: Computer-based instructional technology with the mentally learning handicapped. (6) An IEP Manual for teachers self-published in 1977 that was "wildly successful." (Quote courtesy of the past head of the bookstore at Teachers College, Columbia University who carried the manual in the bookstore and assisted in a daunting mailing effort that covered some 6 years.) That IEP Manual was the result of a research grant that allowed this author to work with dozens of teachers of severely handicapped students throughout the state of Delaware in the mid-1970s.
      (7) One of 15 or so graduate students selected to work -- all major expenses paid -- with the venerable Dr Lou Brown in his well-known special education teacher-preparation summer program at the Univ of Wisconsin in the mid-1970s. (8) Hired by a Dr James Tawney at the Univ of Kentucky in the mid-1970s to coordinate a year-long hands-on, in-class, practically every day lesson plan validation program with nearly a dozen carefully selected teachers and perhaps a hundred or more special education students in Philadelphia. (9) Spent more than a decade subsequent to doctoral training setting up, maintaining, and expanding the first computer program for autistic/emotionally disturbed public school students in the fine city of New York.
      (10) Developed the 10-module FACTS+ software curriculum for the mentally learning handicapped (and elderly and TESOL trainees) that was tested daily in several public school classrooms in New York City for nearly a decade -- winning a national award for "software excellence" in 1990.

In sum, then, the content on this webpage is the result of considerable experience and training. The content, in fact, is the outgrowth of some 25 years of experience in many public schools, with dozens of teachers and hundreds of mentally learning handicapped students using computer technology, in several locations around the world.

           Any questions?

           If not, let's get to the point ...

(Note: All research references cited below are contained in Biblio-Refs)

The Argument

For two compelling reasons, not all special education students will or can benefit productively from computer-based instruction. (1) To use computer technology requires a set of prerequisites which must be demonstrated or taught. Teaching computer-use prerequisites takes considerable teaching time -- time that, given full inclusion or partial inclusion, classroom teachers simply may not have. Why? (2) Because full inclusion is all the rage (Click for details). Full inclusion implies instructional parity; parity requires that everyone in full inclusion classrooms be assured equal access to the technology. Given that litigious fact (how do you spell lawsuit!), the issue of mastery level efficiency becomes central (Click for details): Can computer-based instruction be productive for a special education student if (s)he is given access the computer, say, 3 times a week for 1 hour per access -- since that is all the time allowed all other students in the class? Depending on the functioning level of the student, the answer for a significant proportion of students in special education is a resounding No.

This second issue is parity -- a politically loaded term that impacts terms such as full inclusion, educational parity, instructional triage, and instructional efficiency. Parity as it applies to computer-use is more provocative and is properly discussed elsewhere on this website -- Parity (click). On this webpage, the advantages of and prerequisites for using computers with the mentally learning handicapped are discussed below.

COMPUTER AS TUTOR

         The computer is the quintessential one-to-one tutor. Without question the computer is far superior to human tutors for teaching the mentally learning handicapped a wide variety of employable skills (Chapter 4 of my book manuscript). The computer gets the job done exquisitely. Let us count the ways...

1. To begin with, the computer is uncommonly patient: The computer gets neither frustrated nor bored. It never raises its voice, never seems irritated or upset, never tantrums and it is never absent, never late. When the student is ready to learn, the computer is eager to assist. If the student opts to learn for hours at a time, the computer is only too eager again to assist.

2. The computer allows (encourages?) self-pacing: The user can work at a self-determined rate for as long as (s)he desires -- with nary a complaint from the computer. Fast or slow. On-task for one minute or five; off-task the rest of the time. It makes no difference to the PC-tutor.

3. The computer is instructionally neutral. It offers no unintentional cues that might subtly prompt or otherwise bias user responses.

4. The computer appears to be reinforcing. Off-task with book-based materials, more than 90% of the nearly 500 mentally learning handicapped students observed over a decade were eager to use the computer. Students are on-task for long periods, off-task behavior problems (head slapping, finger-flicking, hair-twirling, rocking, and other such rituals) decrease dramatically during computer use. With few exceptions, students must be instructed to end their computer tasks; otherwise, time and again they persist with the on-screen activity.
         The higher functioning the user, the more reinforcing the computer often tends to be. Not surprisingly, then, a major challenge has been to discover or develop software that maximizes the use of color, sound, graphics, and movement -- four critical features of empirical software (Chapter 7 of the book manuscript) -- that can be used to capture and hold (however briefly) the attention and interest of lower functioning mentally learning handicapped students (Click for software).

5. Instructional flexibility. If a learning handicapped individual (or aphasic adult, elderly individual, or young normal learner) requires rote training on his/her home address, phone number, age, father/mother name, etc, the computer is a excellent tutor. If a student needs work following directions and answering logical questions (e.g., What is your name? How old are you?) of the sort required for completing job applications, software can do the training with little need of teacher intervention. If a learner needs instruction on ways to extract critical information from a reading passage (perhaps in preparation for a job-related assignment), once again the computer (and quality software) can save the teacher valuable time and energy. Without question, whether the task is rote learning or inferential reading comprehension, the computer and quality software can do the job -- and well.

6. If using empirical software (Chapter 4, book manuscript), the computer is instructionally precise. It offers immediate correction, branching, immediate feedback and so much else that defines quality instruction. The computer gets the job done, precisely, correctly, immediately, consistently.

7. Ease of mastery. More than 80% of the nearly 500 mentally learning handicapped students worked with over more than a decade learned to use either the keyboard, touchwindow, joystick, Muppet keyboard, printer, and/or graphics tablet in a functionally productive manner. At least 25% of the students learned to insert the disk into an Apple IIe or PC/DOS computer correctly and latch the drive door.

8. Unlimited "mean time between failure" rate; the computer is reliable. We teachers, aides and administrators tend to fall ill and/or require sick leave or vacation time -- sometimes at the most inopportune time. Not so the computer. Never. It is a model of perfect health. If a computer succeeds in operating without circuitry error for the first week or so, it will run indefinitely without structural failure or electronic fault. In short: The computer is surprisingly "fault tolerant." It is also always on time, never complains, never tarries, seldom breaks down, and new-age terms like "RSI" and "ergonomics" are beyond its union or interest. The computer is surprisingly "fault tolerant"--of people, function, and abuse.

9. Tantrum-breaker! Some low-functioning students tend to tantrum, seemingly without even the slightest observable provocation. In eight cases in particular the computer proved to be a 100% positive "calm downer." Removed from the tantrum-triggering setting, silently taken to a computer and prompted with a task on-screen, 100% (!) of the time the student immediately sat down at the computer and became engaging in task-completing behavior. Within 30 seconds the crying stopped, the heavy breathing subsided, the reddened face brightened; within 5 minutes the student was calmed down. The calming effect of a computer activity is one of the major surprise advantages the technology brings to a distractor-laden classroom environment.
            There is an ancillary and important issue here. Is the computer serving as a tantrum-inducer? Is the computer in fact an "SD" (discriminative stimulus) that triggers behavior problems in order to ensure computer access? Observations suggest such is not the case. First, the tantrums at issue are severe; they tend to be violent, replete with head banging, yelling/screaming, biting, and uncontrollable and inconsolable tears and emotional upheaval. Second, such tantrums are few and far between. In some 25 years, this author/programmer has observed less than a dozen such episodes. Third, the students beset by such violent tantrums are generally otherwise of calm nature and well self-controlled. The "triggers" for such outbursts seldom occur as well -- a lost piece of cherished clothing; physical ill-health at the time, magnified by a particularly frustrating event (e.g., wanting to sit in a particular seat at a specific point in time); wanting more of a particular type of food seldom enjoyed and then being shown there is none left; and so forth.

10. Creative vehicle: the computer allows users to demonstrate unknown or seldom used skills and talents. (a) Sophisticated artwork drawn on graphics tablets using a stylus(the IIe Koala Pad and "Blazing Paddles" software; (b) Adept use of the mouse for painting; (c) Use of joystick with certain game software on the PC; (d) Clever use of voice input software and hardware; (e) Blank word processing screen that allows the student to write or copy at will. Creativity untethered, the computer offers.

11. The computer is a perfect debunker for False Authorities advocating its use for "facilitative communication" (FC). FC has been thoroughly debunked in the research literature (click here) for all but False Authorities and Instant Experts. The PC lends itself to quick and simple demonstration of the Ouija Board self-fulfilling junk science that characterizes FC claims and its silly advocates (Chapter 8, book manuscript).

12. The computer is a nonpareil generalization agent. Think of the many advantages of laptops/notebook computers. The learning handicapped can take the learning process just about anywhere beyond the classroom -- car trip, vacation, library, group home, recreation center. Six lbs, 8 x 11 or smaller, 11" bright colored screen, plenty of power and storage. Cost: $1,000 and dropping. What's more, used notebook computers are available from all top-line low-cost mail-order firms -- Dell; Gateway; Winbook. Computers get the job done just about anywhere!

         In sum, the computer can be a very effective and productive teacher's pet. The computer is never tardy, sick, tired, bored, frustrated, impatient, intolerant, contrary, obnoxious, noisy, threatening or threatened, ambitious, turf-protective, on strike, dissatisfied with pay scales, arrogant, off-task, flighty! Indeed, quite the contrary! The computer is always: ready and eager to work; helpful and patient; on-task and on-time; consistent though varied in its reward; constant and repetitious with its corrective feedback; able to respond contingently, contiguously, consistently, continuously; inexpensive and cost-conscious; humble and unassuming; quiet and pleasant. For most learners, the computer is a splendid instructional material -- for most learners, if they possess the pre-requisites.

PC TUTOR: PRE-REQUISITES

Can all special ed students benefit from computers. Absolutely not. The use of computers requires a set of prerequisite skills. A small but still-sizable minority of special ed students do not have those prerequisite computer-use skills. Hence, those skills must be taught, if the special ed student is to use the computer productively to acquire employable skills at an employable rate.

Productive computer-use requires at least the following seven prerequisites. The seven classroom-tested prerequisites listed below are ranked in no particular order, since relative importance depends on a host of both teacher/trainer and user-related variables.

1 Behavioral self-control (compliance, with no temper tantrums for 10 minutes);

2 Understanding cause/effect (means/end, if/then sensory-motor relationships);

3 Fine-motor coordination (finger dexterity, critical when using keyboards);

4 On-task attention (eye-material contact, minimum 5 second duration);

5 One-component direction-following (sufficient language to understand task);

6 Effective reward/reinforcement menu (type, quantity, schedule, satiation level);

7 Proper medication level (a drowsy, dazed, drooling, or hyperactive computer user is a poor learner).

         To promote "instructional efficiency" (click), the first five prerequisites are skills that should previously have been taught. The other two prerequisites are what we call "subject characteristics." There is a very close relationship between the combined effects of a user's reward/reinforcement menu and medication and success with computer-based instruction.

Let's take a moment to review each of these computer-use prerequisites in some depth:

         1. BEHAVIORAL SELF-CONTROL. Computer equipment poses a potentially grave risk to computer users. Electrical wiring, surprisingly fragile monitor screens, open disk drive doors, joystick and graphic tablet connections, electrical outlets, network cabling, easily removed computer covers (though not a problem with the Laser) -- these hazards and more can spell trouble for hyperactive, heavily medicated, distractible, self-abusive, physically aggressive, and/or noncompliant computer users.

         In addition, while the Apple IIe computers are rugged, durable, and abuse-tolerant, they can be broken. (Macs and PC/Dos systems are even more fragile!) Disk drives, keyboards, joysticks, graphics tablets, mice, and input/communication peripherals used by the physically handicapped (e.g., "sip-and-puff" switches, head-pointers), along with the on/off power supply switch are all particularly vulnerable. To wit: The importance of rigorous behavior management simply cannot be overstated when integrating computer technology with instruction.

         Computers therefore must -- must -- be treated with care, concern, and caution at all times. The risk of personal injury or equipment damage is simply too great to suggest otherwise. (The risk to maintenance budgets is no small matter either.)

         We consider appropriate personal conduct (defined by the teacher/trainer in light of the setting and computer user) to be a prerequisite for productive computer-based instruction. The computer is an excellent scaffold for generalizing and practicing appropriate, responsible behavior. It is a poor vehicle for training such behavior -- given the risks involved. Clean up unpredictable behavior before introducing any student to computer technology.

         2. CAUSE/EFFECT, MEANS/END, IF/THEN. Efficient ("effective & productive") computer use presumes cause-and-effect behavior on the part of the computer user. Experience tells us rather decisively that a computer user should demonstrate an understanding that pressing a key, moving a joystick or mouse, or stroking a touchscreen results in a certain, specific outcome. If the user shows no interest in making things happen on the computer screen, computer-time is being poorly spent -- at high cost in terms of time, energy, and revenue cost to other users who might well benefit from access to or greater use of computer-based instruction. No doubt that users can learn cause/effect relationships by means of a computer. However, such use of the technology is a grossly inefficient use of computer time and teacher time. Such users will benefit to a greater extent from teacher-based perceptual-motor instruction designed to teach cause-and-effect relationships. Cause and effect contingency understanding is a skill to be demonstrated by students before they are introduced to computer-based instruction.

         3. FINE-MOTOR COORDINATION. Efficient computer-use requires fine motor coordination and finger dexterity. That is, to avoid frustration. Frustration often leads to off-task, acting out, escape-avoidance behavior. Prospective computer-users should thus demonstrate the ability to identify, focus on, and press a specific key -- any key targeted -- on the keyboard. Otherwise, the frustration created by this level of failure, by unintentionally pressing an incorrect key (due perhaps to undeveloped eye-hand coordination) makes a teacher-based perceptual-motor program a more appropriate alternative.

         One critical qualification to this finding requires special mention, however. For potential computer users with severely involved physical impairments, the computer may be the only effective means of communication. In such cases, electronic head pointers, "sip-and-puff" switches, touch-sensitive keyboards, and other adaptive equipment offer a practical learning alternative. With proper training, the computer can for this population serve adequately as a supporting scaffold, an instructional material, an even as a communication aid (Appendix S in the book manuscript).

         4. ON-TASK ATTENTION SPAN. Eye-contact with the computer screen is a critical ingredient of effective, productive computer-based instruction. If a user will not, does not, or can not focus on the screen long enough to react to his or her motor input, the user in all likelihood would again better benefit from teacher-based perceptual-motor activities than computer-based instruction.

         5. DIRECTION-FOLLOWING. A computer user should possess at least a minimum level of receptive language ability in order to follow spoken or signed directions of the teacher/trainer, parent, therapist, or other mentor -- if the computer is to be used effectively and productively. We believe that the user should demonstrate the ability to carry out at least one-component task requests ("Do this", "Press that key," "Find the letter"), if the computer is to serve as an effective instructional material.

         6. REWARD/REINFORCEMENT MENU. Desired and delivered consequences are critical to effective performance. The potency, effectiveness, or strength of a reinforcement menu plays a vital role in meeting our effective instruction criterion (see Appendix E in the book manuscript). Remember: a "reward" is a food, material, or social consequence which we believe will lead the user to improved instructional performance. A "reinforcer," on the other hand, is a food, material, or social consequence which we objectively know from experience will lead to improved performance. Where intrinsic motivation is lacking, extrinsic reinforcement becomes critical (Bloom, 1976).

         To a very large extent, then, performance on computer-based tasks is a function of at least two motivational factors: (a) whether "their" (the user's) reinforcers or "our" rewards are used as consequences; and (b) the potency or "valuableness" of the reinforcer to the computer-user at any point in time. Not surprisingly, then, a low-functioning pupil may work quickly and accurately in order to obtain, say, a cheese nip, lolly, or small glass of soft drink -- before lunch! After lunch ... well, those goodies will have rather low reinforcing value at that time, to say the least!

         7. CORRECT MEDICATION. The effect of medication on instruction cannot be overlooked. The type of medication, the dosage level, and the recency of administration are important factors that in almost all cases impact (usually on the down side) the level and rate of user performance on the computer.

        Most teacher/trainers of the severely learning handicapped have considerable first hand experience with violently aggressive and/or self-abusive behavior. In order to minimize the likelihood of self-injury, many such learning handicapped children are carefully treated with legally prescribed doses of behavior-altering medication (e.g., Thorazine, Mellaril, Ritalin, Haldol, Benadryl, Loxitane). Without question, such medication can and frequently does dramatically alter the quality as well as the amount of instruction of such learners. Drowsiness, drooling, melancholy, lethargy, lack of appetite -- one or more can adversely affect pupil performance (Courtnage et al., 1982). Keep it in mind.