literacy instruction, technology, and students...

11
LITERACY INSTRUCTION, TECHNOLOGY, AND STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES: RESEARCH WE HAVE, RESEARCH WE NEED Michael J. Kennedy and Donald D. Deshler Abstract. Technology, whether assistive (AT) or instructional (IT), has played an uneven role in the field of learning disabilities since its inception more than a half century ago. In addition, tech- nology is in a constant state of flux; hence, researchers have been challenged to conduct appropriate experimental testing of inter- ventions before they are outdated or made irrelevant by advances in hardware and software. As schools seek to improve learning outcomes for all students using tiered instructional models such as response to intervention (RTI), practitioners need assistance in capitalizing on AT, IT, or a combination of the two, to guide and enrich literacy instruction for students with learning disabilities. This article presents a conceptual framework for multimedia instructional design grounded in theory and empirical research. The article concludes with recommendations for how to integrate multimedia literacy instruction within RTI frameworks MICHAEL J. KENNEDY, M.Ed., Center for Research on Learning, University of Kansas. DONALD D. DESHLER, Ph.D., Department of Special Education and Center for Research on Learning, University of Kansas. The gap between the level at which students with learning disabilities (LD) perform and the demands of the curriculum that they are expected to meet is ofteri wide. This is especially the case as students move into the secondary grades where curricular expectations accelerate and content demands (e.g., history, science, mathematics) are markedly different. The long-term consequences of the challenges stu- dents with LD face are underscored in data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study II, which found (a) 21% of students with LD are five or more grade levels below in reading; (b) 31% of students with LD drop out of school compared to 9.4% of nondisabled peers; and (c) only 11% of students with LD attend postsecondary instituüons (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005). Fortunately, considerable progress has been made in designing and validating interventions and instruc- tional protocols that markedly improve academic out- comes for students with LD. Increasingly, protocols have included technology-based solutions based on the rapid development of technology tools focused on read- ing. Developments in technology-based supports, espe- cially in the area of literacy instruction for students with LD, have promising implications for instruction and learning (McKenna & Proctor, 2006). Although the evi- dence base for using technology in the literacy instruc- tion of students with LD is relatively small (Okolo & Bouck, 2007), curriculum designers and educators have the opportunity to integrate validated instructional practices with technology to markedly improve the Volume 33, Fall 2010 289

Upload: lamtu

Post on 18-Jul-2018

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

LITERACY INSTRUCTION, TECHNOLOGY, ANDSTUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES:RESEARCH WE HAVE, RESEARCH WE NEED

Michael J. Kennedy and Donald D. Deshler

Abstract. Technology, whether assistive (AT) or instructional(IT), has played an uneven role in the field of learning disabilitiessince its inception more than a half century ago. In addition, tech-nology is in a constant state of flux; hence, researchers have beenchallenged to conduct appropriate experimental testing of inter-ventions before they are outdated or made irrelevant by advancesin hardware and software. As schools seek to improve learningoutcomes for all students using tiered instructional models suchas response to intervention (RTI), practitioners need assistance incapitalizing on AT, IT, or a combination of the two, to guide andenrich literacy instruction for students with learning disabilities.This article presents a conceptual framework for multimediainstructional design grounded in theory and empirical research.The article concludes with recommendations for how to integratemultimedia literacy instruction within RTI frameworks

MICHAEL J. KENNEDY, M.Ed., Center for Research on Learning, University of Kansas.DONALD D. DESHLER, Ph.D., Department of Special Education and Center for Research on Learning,

University of Kansas.

The gap between the level at which students withlearning disabilities (LD) perform and the demandsof the curriculum that they are expected to meet isofteri wide. This is especially the case as students moveinto the secondary grades where curricular expectationsaccelerate and content demands (e.g., history, science,mathematics) are markedly different.

The long-term consequences of the challenges stu-dents with LD face are underscored in data from theNational Longitudinal Transition Study II, which found(a) 21% of students with LD are five or more grade levelsbelow in reading; (b) 31% of students with LD drop outof school compared to 9.4% of nondisabled peers; and(c) only 11% of students with LD attend postsecondaryinstituüons (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005).

Fortunately, considerable progress has been made indesigning and validating interventions and instruc-tional protocols that markedly improve academic out-comes for students with LD. Increasingly, protocolshave included technology-based solutions based on therapid development of technology tools focused on read-ing. Developments in technology-based supports, espe-cially in the area of literacy instruction for students withLD, have promising implications for instruction andlearning (McKenna & Proctor, 2006). Although the evi-dence base for using technology in the literacy instruc-tion of students with LD is relatively small (Okolo &Bouck, 2007), curriculum designers and educators havethe opportunity to integrate validated instructionalpractices with technology to markedly improve the

Volume 33, Fall 2010 289

design and implementation of instructional' protocolsand practices (Kamil, 2003).

With the promise of technology to enhance literacy-related outcomes, this article will (a) briefly review cur-rent efforts in technology to address literacy instructionfor students with LD; (b) present a conceptual frame-work for designing multimedia instruction intended toaugment literacy learning of children with LD; and (c)outline recommendations for integrating multimedialiteracy instruction into a tiered instructional frame-works (e.g., response to intervention) and pose ques-tions for future research.

TECHNOLOGY AND LITERACYINSTRUCTION, WHAT WE KNOW

Numerous lines of sustained research have beenundertaken in the field of LD to promote the develop-ment of strong literacy and overall learning skills forstudents (cf. Deshler & Schumaker, 2006; Fuchs, Fuchs,& Burish, 2000; Graham & Harris, 2005; Scruggs,Mastropieri, Berkeley, & Graetz, in press). Each line ofresearch shares a common attribute: It focuses on build-ing capacity within children to become proficient learn-ers (across various contextual settings) without the needfor ongoing external support. Likewise, technology-based solutions, when designed from theoreticallysound pedagological principles, are often, tools thatschools can use to augment traditional face-to-face lit-eracy instruction (Boone & Higgins, 2007; McKenna &Walpole, 2007; Torgesen & Barker, 1995).

While sustained lines of research in the area of tech-nology are only beginning to emerge (cf. Anderson-Inman, 2009), this field has the capacity to benefit fromexisting empirical groundwork as a launching point.Below we attempt to contextualize current technology-based literacy instruction by (a) reviewing a select num-ber of studies that examine technology tools thatpromote literacy-related skill development, and (b)highlighting an existing framework for integratingtechnology into literacy instruction (King-Sears &Evmenova, 2007).

Technology and Literacy InstructionWhile a review of the literature on technology-based

solutions and literacy instruction garners a number ofarticles (e.g., Edyburn, 2003, 2006, 2007), few offer evi-dence of the impact of technology on literacy instruc-tion. Nevertheless, research lines do exist. For example,Anderson-Inman and her colleagues from the NationalCenter for Supported eText (NCSeT) have undertaken asustained line of research in support of the concept ofsupported electronic text (eText). Supported eText helpsstudents gain access to text through simple changes tofont size, color, and availability of other tools that are

assistive in nature. However, the intent of this innova-tion and research is not limited to promoting access(Anderson-Inman, 2009). This research group seeks toimprove student decoding, fluency, and reading com-prehension through various embedded supports such aselectronic dictionaries, links to outside resources, andutilization of cognitive learning strategies (Anderson-Inman & Horney, 2007). Empirical data from the NCSeTgroup have established a record of positive outcomesamong students from various age groups and contentareas (see Anderson-Inman, 2009).

Other examples of empirically validated uses of tech-nology to promote literacy instruction target areas ofvocabulary instruction and reading comprehensioninstruction. Xin and Rieth (2001) used a series of videosin part to provide vocabulary and comprehensioninstruction using the construct of anchored instruction(Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990)!Students who were taught using the technology-basedmaterials made significant gains in number of vocabu-lary words learned vs. control condition students.Likewise, Kim and her colleagues (Kim et al., 2006) usedthe essential principles of the Collaborative StrategicReading program (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996) and builtupon them to create a technology-based program(Computer-Assisted Collaborative Strategic Reading;CACSR). The CACSR was used during an experimentalstudy to teach reading comprehension and other liter-acy skills to students with disabilities; findings from thisresearch favored students who had exposure to the tech-nology-based program.

In these experimental studies with a focus on literacyoutcomes for students with LD, researchers began withtheoretically based instructional principles and intro-duced logical uses of technology to deliver literacyinstruction. As a result, the combination of the effectivepractice with a technology-based solution proved to bean effective intervention. We argue that further researchthat follows this model is needed in the area of tech-nology-based solutions specific to literacy instruction.Building sustained lines of research takes time andresources; yet, the research we have clearly shows that(a) technology can be useful in promoting literacy learn-ing for students witb LD, and (b) existing evidence-based practices for literacy instruction may be of benefitto teachers and students if repacked and delivered usingtechnology.

Technology Integration FrameworkRegardless of the growing research, if we are to see

technology integration within literacy instruction, edu-cators need guidelines or explicit instructions for howvarious uses of technology fit within their existingrepertoires of practice (McKenna & Proctor, 2006). An

Learning Disability Quarterly 290

example of a practitioner-friendly framework for tech-nology integration into literacy instruction is King-Searsand Evmenova's (2007) TECH framework: "Target thestudents' needs and the learning outcomes; Examinethe technology choices, then decide what to use; Createopportunities to integrate technology with otherinstructional activities; and Handle the implementa-tion, and monitor the impact on the students' learning"(p. 10).

Recent research has confirmed that many practition-ers working with students with LD do not use evidence-based strategies found to help raise literacy achievement(Klingner, Urbach, Golos, Brownell, & Menon, 2010). Asresearchers and practitioners consider technology-basedsolutions that are available (given limited district andschool resources) for various learning scenarios, theTECH framework should be viewed as a straightforwardand logical approach to individualizing instruction tomeet the needs of students, while not using technologysimply because it happens to be available. A limitationof this framework is the burden left to practitioners interrns of recognizing the cognitive demands of variouslearning activities and sorting through available tech-nology options to deliver efficient and effective literacyinstruction.

Maccini, Gagnon, and Hughes (2002) conducted asignificant review of technology-based practices for sec-ondary students with LD and noted several recommen-dations to the field. Two of these recommendations areas follows: (a) use technology systematically and strate-gically in instruction; and (b) incorporate effectiveinstructional design principles within technology-basedinstruction (Kelly, Carnine, Gersten, & Grossen, 1986;Kelly, Gersten, & Carnine, 1990).

We use these two key recommendations in offering aconceptual framework that seeks to bridge theory andpractice with respect to technology-based solutions andeffective literacy instruction for students with LD. It isour belief that practitioners need rriore explicit guidancein terms of selecting or designing technology-supported(e.g., multimedia) materials to support the literacylearning needs of students with LD. This need forexplicit guidance provides the rationale for the concep-tual framework presented here.

! CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKtlearly, the literacy of yesterday is not the literacyof today, arid it will not be the literacy of tomorrow.(Leu, 2000, p. 744)

While the empirical base for using IT to improve lit-eracy skills and outcomes for students with LD is stillsolidifying, existing data provide ample rationale towarrant future inquiries (Maccini et al., 2002; Okolo &

Bouck, 2007). The purpose of this conceptual frame-work (see Figure 1) is to ground future research andimplementation of technology-based solutions withintiered instructional models (e.g., RTI) to improve liter-acy skills for students with LD. The conceptual frame-work is organized around four major theoreticalprinciples that individually and collectively influencedesign and delivery of literacy instruction for studentswith LD: (a) the deictic relationship between technol-ogy and literacy (Leu, 2000); (b) technological pedago-logical content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2005); (c)multimedia instructional design principles (Mayer,2009); and (d) the enzymatic theory of education (Fox,1983; Larsen, 1995).

As illustrated in Figure 1, the center of the proposedconceptual framework is the proactive student-centeredlearning theory, the enzymatic theory of education(ETE; Fox, 1983). Our philosophy regarding the purposeof specia.1 education for students with LD is to help stu-dents remediate areas of academic struggle throughindividualized interventions comprised of a menu ofevidence-based practices. Therefore, our graphic showsthe ETE surrounded by instructional design theories andpractices intended to promote active learning in specificareas of need.

The Deictic Relationship Between Technology andLiteracy

We have entered a period of rapid and continuouschange in the forms and functions of literacy.Today, changing technologies for information andcommunication and changing envisionments fortheir use rapidly and continuously redefine thenature of literacy. (Leu, 2000. pp. 744-745)

The concept of deixis within the field of literacy andtechnology means that the overall nature and essence ofliteracy and technology are changing so rapidly andthoroughly that it is difficult to define and describeeither, let alone both in tandem (Leu, 2000). In a sense,the seemingly obvious questions "what is literacy?" and"what is instructional technology?" (and their respec-tive answers) have become moving targets. Forresearchers and practitioners seeking to understand theinterrelated and dynamic relationships between literacyand technology, the deictic nature of this relationshipmakes experimental rigor demanded in today's researchclimate a complex proposition (Leu, 2000).

Across the field of education, rapid and often unpre-dictable advances in technology are well documented.However, the concept of literacy is also an evolving con-struct (Leu, 2000). Hence, tying down a satisfactory def-inition and description of literacy is problematic (Moje,2007). A significant line of research has been under-taken in tbe "new literacies" (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear,

Volume 33, Fall 2010 291

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Deictic Nature ofLiteracy and Technology

(Leu, 2000)

EnzymaticTheory ofEducation(Fox, 1983)

/ TechnologyPedagological Content

Knowledge(Koehler & Mishra, 2005)

Cognitive Theory ofMultimedia Learning

(Mayer, 2009)

& Leu, 2008) to learn more about the cognitive andpractical differences promoted by changing construc-tions of what it means to be literate.

Systemic problems ofdeixis. With regard to technol-ogy-based literacy interventions with limited rigorousfield and experimental testing, educators may be cau-tious about the practices they select for classroom use.An important consideration in this respect is whetherthe technology-based interventions have an underly-ing theoretical basis. Therefore, it is critical that sus-tained programs of research in this area be undertaken(Anderson-Inman, 2009; Edyburn, 2007; Maccini et al.,2002; Okolo & Bouck, 2007). This research will guidepractitioners attempting to provide individualizedservices to students with LD across tiers of instruction.With that said. Klingner et al.'s (2010) recent findingsremind us that not all educators implement evidence-based practices with the fidelity necessary for success.Therefore, researchers must ensure new practices arepowerful, but also usable by the intended audience.

Technological Pedagological Content Knowledge(TPACK)

TPACK and the deictic interplay of literacy andtechnology. Practitioners, teacher educators, and re-searchers can do little to alter the rapidly changing

landscape of how technology influences literacyinstruction, except trying to keep up (Leu, 2000).Therefore, as educators consider technology as astrategy to augment literacy instruction, a major con-sideration will be the capacity to rapidly integratetechnology-based solutions into existing teaching reper-toires. Educators at all levels of the profession have along history of resisting or rejecting new interventionsthat are not a logical flt with their existing approachesto teaching. Technology can play a- role in helpingteachers structure individualized literacy instruction;however, the use of technology must be augmentativeand logical in terms of its impact on the overall instruc-tional plan (Larsen, 1995; Maccini et al., 2002).

Researchers have developed an instructional designframework that seamlessly integrates technology, con-tent, and pedagogy for design and delivery of varioustypes of content, known as technological pedagologicalcontent knowledge, or TPACK for short (Koehler &Mishra, 2005). Koehler and Mishra describe TPACK asan extension of Shulman's (1987) classic construct ofpedagological content knowledge. We see TPACK as ahelpful construct for conceptualizing and organizing therole of IT for delivering literacy instruction when teach-ing students with LD across all tiers of an RTI model.

Learning Disability Quarterly 292

TPACK and tiered instructional models (RTI). Forpractitioners providing services to students within anRTI fj-amework, the question of how TPACK can guideinstructional design across increasingly intensivesettings is a significant issue to be addressed byresearchers. First, it is critical that evidence-based prac-tices I that address literacy skills be in place across alltiers ^ of a school's instructional settings and thatpractitioners are armed with a menu of appropriateIT options to augment existing strategies. Second,researchers, teacher educators, and practitioners mustreflect on the speciflc demands related to literacy nativeto the various content areas and curriculum standards.And finally, typical elements of RTI frameworks such asuniversal screenings and progress monitoring mustguide practitioners in terms of matching the individualneeds of students with evidence-based and IT-drivenpractices that address the demands of the various con-tent areas and learning tasks.

The TPACK framework is potentially useful for select-ing and embedding technology that complements liter-acy instructional practices given different instructionalsettings and the unique learning needs of students.However, the recognition that technology should com-plement existing approaches to instruction, not sup-plant them, leaves a significant piece of the puzzleunsolved, especially for the typical educator responsiblefor the education of students with LD. The piece fre-quently overlooked or taken for granted by practitionersis the actual "looks and sounds" of specific technology-based program or intervention. In the next section wedescribe an important instructional design principlethat tan be used to guide construction of multimediamaterials.

Multimedia Instructional Design PrinciplesEducators must give thought to the impact technol-

ogy has on the cognitive processes of the intended audi-encei(Boone & Higgins, 2007; Mayer, 2009). This is onereasqn why researchers from all sides of the technologydiscussion agree that technology must not be used gra-tuitously during instruction (King-Sears & Evmenova,2007i). Literacy instruction should reflect multimediadesign principles that are a match for the cognitivelearning needs of the intended population of learners,as much as being a logical addition to the overall planfor teaching.

Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The cogni-tive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) is a learner-oriented instructional theory and empirically validateddesign process (Mayer, 2009). The CTML is grounded inthe cognitive load theory (CLT; Chandler & Sweller,1991Í) and the dual processing theory (DPT; Paivio,1986).

The CLT holds that humans have a limited workingmemory; therefore, when incoming stimuli overwhelmthe limited cognitive resources in working memory,new learning cannot take place (Chandler & Sweller,1991). The DPT, in turn, reflects the belief that humanshave capacity to internalize information through visualand auditory channels in working memory (Paivio,1986). The combination of these two theories and asso-ciated research findings underwrite Mayer's CTML andits three, assumptions about human cognition. Thethree assumptions of the CTML are as follows:

(a) Humans possess two separate channels for pro-cessing visual and auditory information; (b)Humans are limited in the amount of informationthat they can process in each channel at one time;and (c) Humans engage in active learning byattending to relevant incoming information,organizing selected information into coherentmental representations, and integrating mentalrepresentations with other knowledge. (Mayer,2009, p. 63)

A key component of the CTML is an understandingthat learners' cognitive capacity is influenced by threekinds of cognitive load during learning, termed the tri-archic model of cognitive load (DeLeeuw & Mayer,2008). When designing instructional materials toaddress Mayer's three assumptions, it is necessary to useresearch-based design principles that address each spe-ciflc element of the triarchic model of cognitive load by(a) limiting extraneous processing, (b) managing essen-tial processing, and (c) fostering generative processing(Mayer, 2009).

Grounded in CLT and DPT, Mayer has outlined 10interdependent, research-validated design principlesthat, when brought together, constitute a "constructionchecklist" for designing instructional materials that areeffective for fostering learning (see Mayer, 2009). Thesteps and a brief description are listed in Table 1.

The CTML and literacy learning of students withLD. Students with LD need instruction that activelyreflects on and addresses limitations with respect to pro-cessing speed, working memory, and overall readingperformance Johnson, Humphrey, Mellard, Woods, &Swanson, 2010; Swanson, 2001). The core of any liter-acy instruction should include evidence-based practices(EBPs); therefore, embedding EBPs within a TPACKframework for multimedia instruction is a logical designstrategy (Harris, Mishra, & Köhler, 2009). However, sim-ply using TPACK does not necessarily address Mayer'sassumptions of how humans utilize limited cognitiveresources to process information, and thereby meet theindividualized cognitive needs of students with LD.

In reality, many uses of technology to deliver or aug-ment literacy instruction can be distracting, disruptive.

Volume 33, Fall 2010 293

Table 1Mayer's Design Principles as Aligned with the Triarchic Model of Cognitive Load

TriarchicModel ofCognitive Load(DeLeeuw &Mayer, 2008)

LimitExtraneousProcessing

ManageEssentialProcessing

FosterGenerativeProcessing

Research-BasedInstructional DesignPrinciples (Mayer,2009)

Coherence Principle

Signaling Principle

Redundancy Principle

Spatial Contiguity Principle

Temporal Contiguity Principle

Modality Principle

Segmenting Principle

Pretraining Principle

Multimedia Principle

Personalization, Voice, andImage Principles

Brief Description of Mayer's InstructionalDesign Principles (Mayer, 2009)

Instructional materials are enhanced whenirrelevant or extraneous information isexcluded

Learning is enhanced when explicit cues areprovided that signal the beginning of majorheadings or elements of the material beingcovered

Inclusion of extensive text (transcription) onscreen along with spoken words and pictureshinders learning. Carefully selected words orshort phrases, however, augment retention(Mayer & Johnson, 2008)

On-screen text and pictures should bepresented in close proximity to one anotherto limit eye shifting during instructionalpresentations

Pictures and text shown on screen shouldcorrespond to the audio presentation

People learn better from spoken words andpictures than they do from pictures and textalone

People learn better when multimediapresentations are divided into short bursts (5-7minutes) as opposed to longer modules

Instructional messages should contain somesort of orienting message to introduce theforthcoming content

People learn better from pictures and spokenwords than from words alone

Narration presented in a conversational styleresults in better engagement and learning thanmore formal audio presentations

Adapted from "Using enhanced podcasts to augment limited instructional time in teacher preparation," by M. J. Kennedy, J. E. Hart, & R. O.Kellems (in press). Teacher Education and Special Education. Copyright 2010 by Sage. Used with permission.

Learning Disability Quarterly 294

or ali:ogether ineffective if they are not produced withthe individualized cognitive needs of the target learnerin rriind (Mayer, 2009). As professionals design multi-media instructional materials that explicitly addresslearning demands presented by text or content, Mayer'sCTML and accompanying instructional design princi-ples may be a pathway to ensure the look and soundof materials adhere to the theoretical principles of mul-timedia learning and the cognitive learning needs ofstudents with LD.

IEnzymatic Theory of Education

Fox's (1983) enzymatic theory of education (ETE)completes our conceptual framework and vision for useof rriultimedia instruction to promote literacy skillsamohg students with LD. A student-centered learningtheory (Larsen, 1995), the ETE is a logical match giventhe other elements of our conceptual framework (e.g.,deictiic nature of literacy, TPACK, and the CTML). TheETE holds that students with LD need instruction thatfacilitates, enhances, and accelerates cognitive pro-cesses and overall motivation (Fox, 1983; Larsen,1995). In this model, students are encouraged andexpected to be catalysts in their own learning, asopposed to being passive recipients of information.

To¡ provide instruction in line with the ETE, practi-.tioners must select or design instructional materialsthat 'are grounded in theory and are a logical match forthe demands of the intended audience. To createinstruction with technology that is of use for studentswith LD, therefore, it is necessary to consider all aspectsof a' computer program, including dimensions ofgraphics, text, feedback types, motivation, and learnercontrol (Larsen, 1995).

Mayer's CTML and accompanying instructionaldesign principles are a logical method for authoringmulilimedia instruction that facilitates learning amongstudents with LD. Educators who develop their teach-ing repertoire within a TPACK framework and consis-tently create multimedia instructional materials thatadhere to theory-based instructional design and learn-ing principles will find students who are more engagedand 'successful in their literacy and overall learning.The lETE is an essential piece of instruction occurringwithin RTI frameworks, especially for struggling andfrustrated students at tiers 2 and 3.Summary of Conceptual Framework

Teaching students with LD - at any level or in anycontent area - is a complex task for any educator. Thiscomplexity is sustained and perpetuated, at least in part,by the deictic nature of technology and literacy (Leu,2000). Fortunately, educators have the capacity to beguided by theoretical principles for instructional designand ¡can look to empirical research to bolster existing

teaching repertoires that work for literacy learning.Evidence-based practices for literacy instruction (e.g.,Torgesen et al., 2007) and instructional design frame-works (e.g., TPACK, UDL; Mayer's CTML) can guideconstruction of homegrown technology-based prac-tices and interventions that empower the hands-onlearning of students with LD.

RECOMMENDATIONSBased on our review of the theoretical and empirical

literature germane to teaching literacy skills to studentswith LD in a tiered instructional system, we proposethree recommendations for practitioners. Followingthe recommendations is an analysis of how practition-ers can embed each of the recommendations within anRTI framework.

Recommendation 1Select or design multimedia materials for use in liter-

acy instruction that (a) logically extend existing peda-gogy; and (b) explicitly help students build skillsnecessary for literacy-related success, including meet-ing individual needs, along with demands of local andstate standards (Koehler & Mishra, 2005).

Recommendation 2Design or select multimedia materials that limit

extraneous processing, rrianage essential processing,and foster active learning through micromanagementof literally every image and sound that is presented tostudents during multimedia instruction (DeLeeuw &Mayer, 2008; Mayer, 2009).

Recommendation 3Incorporate validated theories of learning into multi-

media-based literacy instruction (Kelly et al., 1986;Kelly et al;, 1990). However, (a) shape instruction torefiect the discipline- or task-specific literacy demandsof the subject matter being learned, and (b) ensure mul-timedia instruction adheres to the instructional designprinciples of Mayer's CTML.

RTI Implications: Recommendation 1Recommendation 1 is intended to build on the theo-

retical construct of TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2005) toguide practitioners away from conceptualizing the var-ious tiers as places, and instead select evidence-basedinterventions necessary for helping students augmentoverall literacy capacity. The core of this recommenda-tion is that practitioners must take time to reflect on(a) the demands of the curriculum, (b) existing EBPs forproviding instruction, (c) the needs of individual stu-dents, and (d) opportunities to incorporate a logicaland powerful form of instructional technology intoinstruction.

A critical element of TPACK is that technology inte-gration is not an afterthought in the process, but is

Voiume 33, Fall 2010 295

embedded in planning and reflection across all instruc-tional planning and design. For students with LD whoneed explicit instruction that may occur in tiers 2 or 3,technology can influence or augment existingapproaches to skill remediation (McKenna & Walpole,2007). Numerous technology-based stand-alone pro-grams or individual interventions provide targeted lit-eracy instruction to students who need sound- or word-level instruction (e.g.. Read 180, supported eText).However, matching individualized student needs withtechnology-based interventions is not an automaticprocess.

In summary, educators should provide explicit liter-acy instruction to students who need it; however, sim-ply plugging children into a computer terminalinstalled with a stand-alone reading program withoutexplicit consideration of how the technology-basedsolutions logically fits within the overall scope of thechild's development is not advised.

RTI Implications: Recommendation 2A common misconception regarding use of technol-

ogy is that it is effective regardless of the theoreticaland pedagological principles that went into (or did notgo into) authoring the software or intervention (Boone& Higgins, 2007). Recommendation 2, based on thecognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML;Mayer, 2009), is intended to guide practitioners in theirdesign of multimedia instructional materials for use inany instructional setting with students. When it comesto instructional design, with or without the use of tech-nology, educators at every level should carefully con-sider the ease with which students' working memoriesand capacity for cognitive load can be overwhelmed(Chandler & Sweller, 1991; Mayer, 2009). Careful con-sideration of limited cognitive capacity and propensityfor overload is even more critical when planning liter-acy instruction for students with LD.

Mayer's instructional design principles (see Table 1)do not constitute a step-by-step roadmap for instruc-tional design, but may be thought of as a "constructionchecklist" of essential features that the constructionsite foreman checks off as he or she oversees the com-binations of materials (e.g., steel, wood, pipes, wires)being assembled within a new structure. Mayer's frame-work is content-neutral, in that it is useful for guidinginstructional design of content or practices from a widevariety of disciplines. With that in mind, the CTMLand accompanying design features help practitionersensure that the look and sound of the instruction areappropriate in terms of limiting extraneous processing,fostering the processes in working memory, and man-aging active learning. These guidelines are applicable tothe design of instruction at tiers 1, 2, or 3.

RTI Implications: Recommendation 3The purpose of the enzymatic theory of education

is to promote an active learning environment forstudents. In many schools, instruction at tiers 2 arid3 is very repetitive and dull. While, by nature, remedialreading instruction is not an exciting activity, forstudents with LD, it is one of the most importantactivities they will participate in during school(Torgesen & Barker, 1995). Therefore, practitionersmust find ways to make instruction relevant to stu-dents regardless of the topics or skills being taught.Technology is one strategy that can assist in this criti-cal endeavor.

Using Mayer's design principles only accomplisheshalf of the goal with respect to effective design of mul-timedia instructional literacy materials. The best tech-nology in the world cannot compensate for a poorlydesigned and executed lesson. For students with LD inintensive literacy learning situations, the practitionermust be knowledgeable, skilled, and ready with a menuof evidence-based practices to support learning. Asnoted, technology-based solutions created with specificdesign properties and that fit logically within the scopeof a curriculum can be recommended for use (Kelly etal., 1990). However, instruction should still be engagingand relevant to learners to the extent practical given thetype of instruction.

Finally, educators should examine existing evidence-based practices and programs for improving literacyoutcomes for students with LD in search of opportuni-ties to infuse technology into existing practice. We donot recommend that practitioners make haphazardchanges to existing practices or curricula. Instead,numerous opportunities exist to conduct action re-search projects where careful data are taken regardingstudent performance and response to technology-infused instruction.

The Research We NeedIn conclusion, we pose three lingering questions to be

addressed by researchers and teacher educators in thefield of technology-based literacy learning for studentswith LD:

1. What are the barriers and professional develop-ment considerations regarding providing effectivemultimedia literacy instruction at tiers 1, 2, and 3to students with LD?

2. What are the implications for teacher education in, terms of preparing teacher candidates to build

teaching frameworks that include TPACK andother IT practices?

3. Under which learning scenarios (grade level, con-tent area, instructional setting) is multimedia liter-acy instruction most effective? What theoretical

Learning Disability Quarterly . 296

grounding and evidence-based instructional prac-tices were used in the most effective experiments?

As hoted by numerous other researchers, more empir-ical research' is needed related to multimedia literacylearning for students with LD.

REFERENCESAnderson-Inman, L. (2009). Supported eText: Literacy scaffolding

for students with disabilities. Journal of Special EducationTechnology, 24(3), 1-7.

Anderson-Inman, L., & Homey, M. A. (2007). Supported eText:Assistive technology through text transformations. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 42(1), 153-160.

Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2007). The role of instructional designin assistive technology research and development. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 42(1), 135-140.

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and theformat of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332.

The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990).Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition.Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.

Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C, & Leu, D. J. (2008). Handbookof research on new literacies. New York: Lawrence EribaumAssociates.

DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three meas-ures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrin-sic,: extraneous, and germane load. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 100, 223-234.

Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2006). Teaching adolescents withdisabilities-Accessing the general education curriculum. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Edyburn, D. L. (2003). Learning from text. Special EducationTechnology Practice, 5(2), 16-27.

Edyburn, D. (2006). Cognitive prostheses for students with milddisabilities: Is this what assistive technology looks like? Journalof Special Education Technology, 21(4), 62-65.

Edyburn, D. L. (2007). Technology-enhanced reading perform-ance: Defining a research agenda. Reading Research Quarterly,42(1), 146-152.

Fox, D. (1983). Personal theories of teaching. Stiidies in HigherEducation, 8, 151-163.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Students with learning disabil-ities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies.In: L.H Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds). Handbook oflearning disabilities (pp. 323-344). New York: Guilford.

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Köhler, M. (2009). Teachers' technologicalpedagological knowledge and learning activity types:Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal ofResearch on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.

Johnson, E. S., Humphrey, M., Mellard, D. F., Woods, K., &Swanson, H. L. (2010). Cognitive processing deficits and stu-dents with specific learning disabilities: A selective meta analy-sis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 3-18.

Kamil', M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21stcentury. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Kelly, B., Carnine, D., Gersten, R., & Grossen, B. (1986). The effec-tiveness of videodisc instruction in teaching fractions to learn-ing-disabled and remédiai high school students. Journal ofSpecial Education Technology, 8, 5-17.

Keiiy, B., Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1990). Student error patternsas a function of curriculum design: Teaching fractions to reme-dial high school students with learning disabilities. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 23, 23-29.

I

Kennedy, M. J., Hart, J. E., & Keilems, R. O. (in press). Usingenhanced podcasts to augment limited instructional time inteacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education.

Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Kiingner, J., Woodruff, A. L., Reutebuch, C.K., & Kouzekanani, K. (2006). Improving the reading compre-hension of middle school students with disabilities throughcomputer-assisted collaborative strategic reading. Remedial andSpecial Education, 27(4) 235-249.

King-Sears, M. E., & Evmenova, A. S. (2007). Premises, principles,and processes for integrating TECHnoiogy into instruction.

' Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(1), 6-14.Klingner, J. K., Urbach, J., Golos, D., Browneii, M., & Menon, S.

(2010). Teaching reading in the 21st century: A giimpse at howspecial education teachers promote reading comprehension.Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(2), 59-74.

Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of read-ing comprehension strategies for students with learning dis-abilities who use English as a second language. ElementarySchool Journal, 96, 275-293.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachersdesign educational technology? The development of techno-logical pedagological content knowledge. Journal of EducationalComputing Research, 32(2), 131-152.

Larsen, S. (1995). What is "quality" in the use of technology forchildren with learning disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly,18, 118-130.

Leu, D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequencesfor literacy education in an information age. In M. L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of read-ing research (Vol III, pp. 743-770). New York: Routledge.

Maccini, P., Gagnon, J. C, & Hughes, C. A. (2002). Technology-based practices for secondary students with learning disabili-ties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 247-261.

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York:Cambridge University Press.

McKenna, M. C, & Walpole, S. (2007). Assistive technology in thereading clinic: Its emerging potential. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 42(1), 140-145.

McKenna, M. C, & Proctor, K. M. (2006). The role of technologyin the professional development of literacy educators. In M. C.McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.),International handbook of literacy and technology (Voi II, pp. 273-286). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.

Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruc-tion: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching.Review of Research in Education, 3(1), 1-44.

Okolo, C. M., & Bouck, E. C. (2007). Research about assistive tech-nology: 2000-2006. What have we learned? Journal of SpecialEducation Technology, 22(3), 19-33.

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Berkeley, S., & Graetz, J. E. (inpress). Do special education interventions improve learning ofsecondary content? Remedial and Special Education.

Shuiman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of thenew reform.'Harvaríí Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Swanson, H. L. (2001). Research on interventions for adolescentswith learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes relatedto higher-order processing. The Elementary School Journal,101(3), 331-348.

Torgesen, J. K., & Barker, T. A. (1995). Computers as aids in theprevention and remediation of reading disabilities. LearningDisability Quarterly, 18, 76-87.

Volume 33, Fall 2010- 297

Torgesen, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., www.nlts2.org/reports/2005_06/nlts2_report_2005_06_completRoberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Frances, D. J., Rivera, M. O., e.pdf.& Lesaux, N. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: Xin, J. F., & Rieth, H. (2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instructionA guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Portsmouth, for elementary school students with learning disabilities.NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 87-103.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P. (2005). Changesover time in the early postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. Please address correspondence concerning this article to: MichaelA report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Kennedy, University of Kansas, Department of Special Education,Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 1122 W. Campus Road, Room 522, Lawrence, KS 66045; e-mail:(NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Available at [email protected].

Learning Disability Quarterly 298

Copyright of Learning Disability Quarterly is the property of Council for Learning Disabilities and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.