Literacy instruction, technology, and Stud.s with learning disabilities: Research we have, research we need

Learning Disability Quarterly

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 289-298

  Kennedy, Michael J ^a   Deshler, Donald D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84856905314     PISSN: 07319487     EISSN: 2168376X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/073194871003300406     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Anderson-Inman L. Supported eText: Literacy scaffolding for Stud.s with disabilities. journal of Special Education Technology. 2009; 24 (3). 1-7
2. Anderson-Inman L., Homey M. A. Supported eText: Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly. 2007; 42 (1). 153-160
3. Boone R., Higgins K. The role of instructional design in assistive technology research and development. Reading Research Quarterly. 2007; 42 (1). 135-140
4. Chandler P., Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction. 1991; 8: 293-332
5. Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher. 1990; 19 (6). 2-10
6. Coiro J., Knobel M., Lankshear C., Leu D. J. Handbook of research on new literacies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2008 :
7. DeLeeuw K. E., Mayer R. E. A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2008; 100: 223-234
8. Deshler D. D., Schumaker J. B. Teaching adolescents with disabilities-Accessing the general education curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; 2006 :
9. Edyburn D. L. Learning from text. Special Education Technology Practice. 2003; 5 (2). 16-27
10. Edyburn D. Cognitive prostheses for Stud.s with mild disabilities: Is this what assistive technology looks like?. journal of Special Education Technology. 2006; 21 (4). 62-65
11. Edyburn D. L. Technology-enhanced reading performance: Defining a research agenda. Reading Research Quarterly. 2007; 42 (1). 146-152
12. Fox D. Personal theories of teaching. Studies in Higher Education. 1983; 8: 151-163
13. Graham S., Harris K. R. Handbook of learning disabilities. Swanson L. H. Harris K. Graham S., ed. New York: Guilford; 2005: 323-344.
14. Harris J., Mishra P., Kohler M. Teachers' technological pedagological knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2009; 41 (4). 393-416
15. Johnson E. S., Humphrey M., Mellard D. F., Woods K., Swanson H. L. Cognitive processing deficits and Stud.s with specific learning disabilities: A selective meta analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly. 2010; 33 (1). 3-18
16. Kamil M. L. Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education; 2003 :
17. Kelly B., Carnine D., Gersten R., Grossen B. The effectiveness of videodisc instruction in teaching fractions to learning-disabled and remedial high school Stud.s. Journal of Special Education Technology. 1986; 8: 5-17
18. Kelly B., Gersten R., Carnine D. Stud. error patterns as a function of curriculum design: Teaching fractions to remedial high school Stud.s with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 1990; 23: 23-29
19. KennedyM. J.HartJ. E.KellemsR. O. (in press). Using enhanced podcasts to augment limited instructional time in teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education.
20. Kim A., Vaughn S., Klingner J., Woodruff A. L., Reutebuch C. K., Kouzekanani K. Improving the reading comprehension of middle school Stud.s with disabilities through computer-assisted collaborative strategic reading. Remedial and Special Education. 2006; 27 (4). 235-249
21. King-Sears M. E., Evmenova A. S. Premises, principles, and processes for integrating TECHnology into instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children. 2007; 40 (1). 6-14
22. Klingner J. K., Urbach J., Golos D., Brownell M., Menon S. Teaching reading in the 21st century: A glimpse at how special education teachers promote reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly. 2010; 33 (2). 59-74
23. Klingner J. K., Vaughn S. Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for Stud.s with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. Elementary School journal. 1996; 96: 275-293
24. Koehler M. J., Mishra P. What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagological content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2005; 32 (2). 131-152
25. Larsen S. What is "quality" in the use of technology for children with learning disabilities?. Learning Disability Quarterly. 1995; 18: 118-130
26. Leu D. J. Handbook of reading research. Kamil M. L. Mosenthal P. B. Pearson P. D. Barr R., ed. New York: Routledge; 2000: 743-770.
27. MacCini P., Gagnon J. C., Hughes C. A. Technology-based practices for secondary Stud.s with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly. 2002; 25: 247-261
28. Mayer R. E. Multimedia learning. 2009 ). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009 :
29. McKenna M. C., Walpole S. Assistive technology in the reading clinic: Its emerging potential. Reading Research Quarterly. 2007; 42 (1). 140-145
30. McKenna M. C., Proctor K. M. International handbook of literacy and technology. McKenna M. C. Labbo L. D. Kieffer R. D. Reinking D., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006: 273-286.
31. Moje E. B. Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education. 2007; 3 (1). 1-44
32. Okolo C. M., Bouck E. C. Research about assistive technology: 2000-2006. What have we learned?. Journal of Special Education Technology. 2007; 22 (3). 19-33
33. Paivio A. Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1986 :
34. ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.BerkeleyS.GraetzJ. E. (in press). Do special education interventions improve learning of secondary content?Remedial and Special Education.
35. Shulman L. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review. 1987; 57 (1). 1-22
36. Swanson H. L. Research on interventions for adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related to higher-order processing. The Elementary School journal. 2001; 101 (3). 331-348
37. Torgesen J. K., Barker T. A. Computers as aids in the prevention and remediation of reading disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly. 1995; 18: 76-87
38. Torgesen J. K., Houston D. D., Rissman L. M., Decker S. M., Roberts G., Vaughn S., Wexler J., Fiances D. J., Rivera M. O., Lesaux N. Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction; 2007 :
39. Wagner M., Newman L., Cameto R., Levine P. Changes over time in the early postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. A report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International; 2005 :
40. Xin J. F., Rieth H. Video-assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school Stud.s with learning disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual. 2001; 1: 87-103