The potential for multi-modal approaches to reading for students with disabilities as found in state reading standards

Journal of Disability Policy Studies

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 219-229

  Johnstone, Christopher ^a   Thurlow, Martha ^a   Thompson, Sandra ^a   Clapper, Ann T ^b  

^a National Center on Educational Outcomes   (United States)

^b Deloitte Consulting Korea   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Accessibility; Disability; Education; K 12; Reading; Standards

Indexed keywords

EID: 39449096364     PISSN: 10442073     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1044207307311529     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Allington, R.L., & Cunningham, P.M. (1996). Schools that work: Where all children read and write. New York: HarperCollins College.
2. American Federation of Teachers. (1999). Making standards matter 1999. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 27, 2003, from www.aft.org/edissues/ standards99
3. Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M.A. (1998). Transforming text for at-risk readers. In D. Reinking, L. Labbo, M. McKenna, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformation in a post-typographic world (pp. 15 - 43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Biemiller, A., & Siegel, L.S. (1997). A longitudinal study of the effects of the Bridge reading program for children at risk for reading failure. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 20, 83 - 92.
5. Carver, R.P. (1981). Reading comprehension and reading theory. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
6. Carver, R.P. (1990). Reading rate: A review of research and theory. New York: Academic Press.
7. Carver, R.P. (2000). How will reading be defined in the new millennium ? Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 67 - 68.
8. Center for Applied Special Technology. (2003). National file format initiative at NCAC. Retrieved January 9, 2003, from http://www.cast.org/NCAC/NFF
9. Center for Applied Special Technology. (2004). National instructional materials accessibility standard Retrieved July 2004 from http://www.cast.org
10. Clapper, A.T., Morse, A.B., Lazarus, S.S., Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2005). 2003 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 56). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
11. Crawford, P.A. (1995). Early literacy: Emerging perspectives. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10, 71 - 86.
12. Finn, C.E., Jr., Petrilli, M.J., & Vanourek, G. (1998). The state of state standards (Fordham Report, Vol. 2). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
13. Gavelek, J.R., & Raphael, T.E. (1996). Changing talk about text: New roles for teachers and students. Language Arts, 73, 182 - 192.
14. Joftus, S., & Berman, I. (1998). Great expectations? Defining and assessing rigor in state standards for mathematics and English language arts. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
15. Kamil, M.L., Intrator, S.M., & Kim, H.S. (2000). The effects of other technologies on literacy and literacy learning. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 771 - 788). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Koenig, A.J., Layton, C.A., & Ross, D.B. (1992). The relative effectiveness of reading in large print and with low vision devices for students with low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 86, 48 - 53.
17. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
18. Lyon, G.R. (1996). Learning disabilities. Futures of Children, 6, 54 - 76.
19. Moats, L.C., & Lyon, G.R. (1996). Wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Topics in Language Disorders, 16 (2). 73 - 86.
20. New London Group. (1994). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60 - 92.
21. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2001).
22. Okolo, C.M., Cavalier, A.R., Ferretti, R.P., & MacArthur, C.A. (2000). Technology, literacy, and disabilities: A review of the research. In R. Gersten, E. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Synthesis of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 179 - 250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Roberts, P. (1998). Extending literate horizons: Paulo Friere and the multi-dimensional word. Educational Review, 50, 105 - 114.
24. Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind. (2002). Print disability. Retrieved April 17, 2002, from http://home.vicnet.au/∼dakit/printdis/ pdhandout1.htm
25. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
26. Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360 - 407.
27. Thompson, S.J., Johnstone, C.J., Thurlow, M.L., & Clapper, A.T. (2004). State reading standards, instruction, and assessment: Exploring accessibility (Technical Rep. No. 38). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
28. Van Daal, V., & Reitsma, P. (1990). Effects of independent word practice with segmented and whole-word sound feedback in disabled readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 13, 133 - 148.
29. Valencia, S.W., & Wixson, K.K. (2001). Inside English/language arts standards: What's in a grade? Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 202 - 217.
30. Walmsley, S.A., & Allington, R.L. (1995). Redefining and reforming instructional support programs for at-risk students. In R. L. Allington & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America's elementary schools (pp. 19 - 44). Newark, DE, and New York: International Reading Association and Teachers College Press.
31. Wilkinson, M.E., Stewart, I., & Trantham, C.S. (2000). The Iowa model for pediatric low vision services. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 94, 446 - 452.
32. Wise, B.W., & Olson, R.K. (1994). Using computers to teach spelling to children with learning disabilities. In G. D. A. Brown & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of spelling: Theory, practice and intervention (pp. 481 - 504). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
33. Yoon, J.-C., Park, M., & Commeyras, M. (2002). A comparative study of symbolic reading: Salt peddler and shinbone. Current Issues in Education, 5 (2). Retrieved February 27, 2003, from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume5/number2/ index.html