Helping Students Succeed Within Secondary-Level … Students Succeed Within Secondary-Level STEM Content Using the "T" in STEM to Improve Literacy Skills Michael J. Kennedy and Jade

STEM Education

t

I

Helping Students SucceedWithin Secondary-LevelSTEM ContentUsing the "T" in STEMto Improve Literacy SkillsMichael J. Kennedy and Jade Wexler

STEM: science, technology, engineering,and math courses. The words alone arechallenging to many secondary stu-dents with specific leaming disabilities.Add to these difflcult concepts a some-times bewildering, intertangled vocabu-lary and you get a set of challengesthat many students find daunting. Tothis add frustrated teachers who maybe using methods that aren't effective(such as over-lecturing), who may havemany students who are performingbelow grade level in literacy skills, andwho may stmggle to make STEMcontent relevant to the lives of theirstudents.

Despite the fact that we have con-flrmed effective reading instructionalpractices for students who struggle atthe elementary level, many studentscontinue to have difflculty reading andcomprehending grade-level text inGrades 4 through 12 (Biancarosa &Snow, 2004). This difficulty is espe-cially true for adolescents with speciflclearning disabilities (SLD), becausethey continuously face complex aca-demic challenges. These intertwinedchallenges can restrict learning andoverall achievement (Deshler &

26 GOUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL GHILDREN

Shumaker, 2006). Such complex chal-lenges are prevalent in science, tech-nology, engineering, and math (STEM)coursework, given the hefty demandsof vocabulary terms and concepts(Therrien, Taylor, Hosp, Kaldenberg, &Gorsh, 2011), obtuse expository texts(Mason & Hedin, 2011), and subject-speciflc problems that need to beaddressed through inquiry and otheradvanced cognitive processes (Lee &Spratley, 2010).

When faced with the responsibilityof teaching adolescents with SLD whomay be reading several grades belowtheir peers, general and special educa-tors can hardly be blamed for feelingoverwhelmed. Teachers may strugglewith determining which evidence-based reading strategies (e.g., vocabu-lary and comprehension strategies) aremost appropriate for their students, aswell as how to incorporate the strate-gies into instruction while keeping upthe instructional pace. Thus, for practi-tioners searching for evidence-basedstrategies and ways to deliver thosepractices to help students succeedwithin secondary-level STEM contentis to look at potential mismatchesbetween common instructional meth-

ods and content demands. This articleprovides teachers with both alternativeand emerging evidence-basedapproaches to address the challengesin STEM content areas while support-ing content-specific literacy demandsusing instructional technology.

Identifying Mismatches:Instructional Methods andContent Demands in STEMClassrooms

Although there are surely more, webegin this discussion by discussingtwo signiflcant mismatches betweenhow STEM content at the secondarylevel is organized and taught, and thecognitive learning needs of studentswith SLD. Given these potential prob-lems, we then introduce a new appli-cation of instructional technology thatis intended to support improvedinstruction and student learning.

Mismatch 1 : InstructionalDelivery Methods Do NotAl>vays Support Learning

The Endless Lecture. You are proba-bly all too familiar with situations inwhich a 10th grade biology teacher, forexample, delivers a 30- to 45-minute

PowerPoint-driven lecture with a largeamount of on-screen text and compleximages (i.e., diagrams of cells). In thishypothetical lecture, the teacher may"only" introduce one to three complex,multisyllabic vocabulary terms or con-cepts, but he or she is also likely to lib-erally use language that consists of anuntold number of technical terms, con-cepts, formulas, and other jargon thatmay be completely unknown to thestruggling learner. Students with SLDare unlikely to keep pace during thesefast-paced lectures, and they may havetrouble discriminating between impor-tant versus trivial details (Swanson,2001).

This biology teacher may augmenther lecture by assigning a 15-page text-book chapter as a homework assign-ment and primer for the next day's les-son. This scenario is not unusual, astextbooks play a dominant role inSTEM instruction (Brigham, Scruggs, &Mastropieri, 2011). Unfortunately forthe struggling learner, the sameunknown science-specific languageconventions and vocabulary terms thataffect learning during oral lectures canrestrict ability to read and comprehendtextbooks and other text-based materi-als (Villanueva &. Hand, 2011). As aresult, the inability to comprehend textor keep pace during face-to-face

instruction results in a perpetual cycleof failure within STEM and other sec-ondary-level content coursework formany struggling students.

Basic Literacy Struggles. Many stu-dents with SLD in an area related toreading have limited basic literacyskills. Shanahan and Shanahan (2008)define basic literacy skills for adoles-cents as "decoding and knowledge ofhigh-frequency words that underlie vir-tually all reading tasks" (p. 44). In fact,a common belief is that all secondarystudents (Grade 4 and above) are readyto shift from "learning to read" (i.e.,decoding) to "reading to learn" (i.e.,comprehension). The truth, however, is

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN MAR/APR 2013 27

that many students continue to strug-gle at a basic level, including decodingtext laden with multisyllabic words,prohibiting their ability to accessmeaning in the upper-level expositorytexts they are presented within contentarea classes. Thus, students with SLDneed individualized, evidence-basedreading instruction to overcome defi-ciencies in their basic literacy skills(Edmonds et al., 2009; Vaughn et al.,2011).

Older students who struggle withreading must keep up with the com-plex concepts that are introducedacross the content areas; however, theycannot always rely on their existingreading skills to access this information(Roberts, Torgesen, Boardman, &Scammacca, 2008). Therefore, second-ary teachers should find ways to incor-porate evidence-based instruction incontent area classes to improve stu-dents' ability to decode multisyllabicwords, make sense of complex vocabu-lary, and attach meaning to facilitatelearning in the content areas (Faggella-Luby & Deshler, 2008). In the next sec-tion, we present two key evidence-based approaches for accomplishingthese tasks.

Mismatch 2: ContentDemands That OverwhelmStudent Cognition

Limited Relevance to Students' Lives.STEM coursework often contains con-tent that has no obvious real-worldmeaning to adolescents and is fre-quently abstract and laden with multi-step operations. In addition, sometasks require application of specificoperations or rules for solving prob-lems. These processes can strain thecognitive capacity of some learnerswhen attempting to update or createnew schémas in long-term memory(Swanson, 2001).

Consider the following example: A9th grade mathematics teacher uses anoverhead projector to demonstrate howto solve for x when working on poly-nomial equations. Although the basicskills needed to solve algebraic equa-tions are usually not inherently compli-cated (e.g., addition, subtraction, mul-tiplication, division), some students

with SLD will either not have basicfacts memorized, or take a longer timethan their peers in recalling facts. Theproblem of slow retrieval of memorizedcontent becomes problematic when,for example, teachers present abstractand multiStep algebraic equations tostudents. If students take too muchtime searching for memorized mathfacts or for specific steps to completean operation, the students will havevery little time and capacity to applythis information and solve novel prob-lems. In addition, the teacher at theoverhead projector is likely usingmathematics-specific language toexplain the problem's steps to stu-dents, which, as previously noted, isalso a mismatch for how students withSLD best learn new and complex con-tent. In sum, students with SLD whodo not possess adequate backgroundknowledge to anchor new instruction,and are not taught using evidence-based practices that explicitly supportcognition are at significant risk forstruggle and failure within STEMcoursework.

Designing the Instruction StudentsNeed. Despite the somewhat inherentcomplexity of STEM coursework, stu-dents with SLD need (and are entitledto) specially designed instructionalsupports intended to help bridge anygaps between their overall cognitiveprocessing struggles and the demandsof the curriculum (Hallahan, Lloyd,

article, we encourage you to readStrangman and Dalton (2005) for athorough discussion.

In this article, we describe anemerging application of instructionaltechnology, called Content AcquisitionPodcasts (CAPs; Kennedy, 2011;Kennedy, Newton, Haines, Walther-Thomas, & Kellems, 2012; Kennedy &Thomas, 2012). CAPS is a practicalway to address the two mismatchesnoted previously. We describe howteachers and students can use CAPs inconcert with evidence-based practicesfor improving literacy outcomes inSTEM classes.

What Are CAPs?

CAPs are short, multimedia-basedinstructional vignettes that use stillimages and occasional on-screen text,and contain carefully constructed nar-ration to dehver instruction for onevocabulary term/concept, fact/event,or other singular piece of information.

Cognitive Supports

CAPs are different from generic pod-casts in that they sync visuals andaudio together with strict adherence toMayer's Cognitive Theory of Multi-media Learning (CTML; 2009) andinstructional design principles (2008).Mayer's CTML (2009) offers teachers apractical framework for designing mul-timedia-based instructional materialsthat do not introduce undue levels of

Students with SLD who do not possess adequatebackground knowledge are at significant risk for

struggle and failure within STEM coursework.

Kauffman, Weiss, & Martinez, 2005),which includes the ability to read andcomprehend complex texts (Mason &Hedin, 2011). Specially designed sup-ports in STEM classrooms can includeapplications of assistive or instructionaltechnology, in addition to more tradi-tional approaches to teaching andlearning (e.g., explicit and directinstruction; Kennedy, 2011). Though afull treatment of the numerous estab-lished and emerging lines of researchin this area is beyond the scope of this

cognitive load; instead, these materialspromote active cognitive processesneeded for learning. Please see Ken-nedy & Thomas (2012) for a detaileddiscussion of how CAPs reflect Mayer'sprinciples.

Although CAPs are theoreticallysupported practices, they are merely avessel for delivering instruction. Thus,CAPs must be infused with relevantevidence-based practices to be effec-tive (Kennedy, 2011). Eor example,teachers can easily digitize content for

28 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

explicit or direct instruction for wordlearning, as well as powerful learningstrategies such as the keywordmnemonic strategy. As you watch asample CAP that teaches the meaningof the term photosynthesis (https://vlmeo.com/49191997), take note ofhow the CAP includes evidence-basedpractices for vocabulary instruction. Inshort, CAPS reflect best practice interms of supporting student cognitionand can also provide strong instruc-tional practice.

Production Steps

Although the prospect of creating newmultimedia-based instructional materi-als for STEM instruction may be over-whelming, it is not beyond the reachof the dedicated special educator witha modern computer. To illustrate, therecommended software for creatingCAPS is to use Microsoft's PowerPoint(PPT). We have created a CAP on howto create CAPs using PPT, which isbroken into two parts, and is availableat http://vimeo.com/24179998 (part 1)and http://vimeo.com/24182724 (part2). The production steps are also avail-able in written form at http://people.virginia.edu/ ~ mjk3p/. As you reviewthese materials, note that the requiredknowhow with respect to technology isat a minimum, and the needed soft-ware and hardware are virtually certainto already be installed on every com-puter you own or use at school(assuming it was purchased within thepast decade). With that said, masteringthe technology side of the CAP produc-tion process is only half of the equa-tion when preparing instructionalmaterials for STEM classrooms. Thesecond, and more critical element ispreparing content so that it is tied toappropriate evidence-based practicesthat meet students' cognitive process-ing needs.

In the remainder of this article, wepresent a four-part framework calledCAP-4-STEM that is intended to helpspecial educators prepare STEM con-tent for packaging and delivery usingCAPS. The CAP-4-STEM framework isintegrated within a discussion of twokey types of literacy instruction (i.e.,word learning strategies and high-qual-

ity vocabulary instruction) that manystudents with SLD in an area related toreading need to be successful in STEMclassrooms.

Evidence-Based Methodsfor Improving LiteracyAchievement at theSecondary Level

CAP-4-STEM Framework

The CAP-4-STEM framework (seeFigure 1) contains four key steps forpreparing content to be inserted into aCAP. Step 1 is to identify the mor-phemes and any root words within acritical term or concept you want toteach. A morpheme is the smallest unitof language within a word that con-tains meaning, such as a preflx orsuffix.

Step 2 is to prepare a student-friendly definition for each identifledelement of the word. This can be achallenge because many sufflxes sim-ply function to change the tense orplurality of a term; however, this isprecisely the type of instruction stu-dents with SLD need to be successful(Reed, 2008).

Step 3 is to determine a student-friendly deflnition of the term in theSTEM context being used. Users shouldbe careful not to deflne new termswith other words requiring a deflnition;however, this can be problematicbecause many STEM terms and con-cepts require significant knowledge tobe fully understood.

Finally, Step 4 is to select clearand vivid images that learners can useto remember meanings of the wordparts and the term. You can find someroyalty-free images at www.google.com/images or other search engines.

The steps of the CAP-4-STEMframework are inspired by, and inter-face with two essential approaches toteaching word meanings to studentswith SLD. The two approaches are (a)explicitly teaching word-learning strate-gies (Harris, Shumaker, & Deshler,2011), which is a cornerstone of provid-ing (b) explicit and strategic vocabu-lary instruction (Ebbers & Dentón,2008).

Teaching Word-LearningStrategies

Many secondary students struggle withreading muhisyllabic words, whichmake up a majority of the text theyencounter (Archer, Gleason, & Vachon,2003), especially in STEM classrooms(Brigham et a l , 2011). These studentsmay benefit from explicit instruction insyllabication strategies designed toimprove reading of these complicated,often content-specific words (Bhat-tacharya & Ehri, 2004). This instructiontypically involves teaching students therules of syllabication and a flexiblestrategy to break words into meaning-ful parts, such as identifying prefixes,sufflxes, and affixes (Archer et al.,2003). For example, students can learnthe following strategy to decode andattach meaning to multisyllabic words(e.g., malfunctioning):

1. Circle the word parts (preflxes) atthe beginning of the word, mal- inmalfunctioning

2. Circle the word parts (sufflxes) atthe end of the word, -mg in mal-functioning

3. Underhne letters representingvowel sounds In the rest of theword, -al, -un, -ion, and -¿ng inmalfunctioning

4. Say the parts of the word, mal-func-tion-ing

5. Say the word fast, malfunctioning

6. Make it a real word.

To achieve maximum utility whenproviding students with word-levelinstruction in STEM classrooms, teach-ers should encourage students to learnspeciflc strategies they can use whendecoding unfatniliar terms with similarmorphemes (Harris et al., 2011). Thisprocess is referred to as generativeword learning strategies and is logicalfor use in STEM classrooms given thefrequent use of Greek and Latin rootwords, as well as common preflxes andsuffixes (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008).The six-step strategy noted previouslyis an example of a generative approachto word learning.

What Technology Can Do. Althoughteachers have found many ways to

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN MAR/APR 2013 29

Figure 1 . CAP-4-STEM Framework

Preparing STEM Content for Delivery Using CAPs

4. Find nonabstract¡mages to representcontent

3. Determine student-friendlydefinition for v/hole termin STEM context

2. Find studenf-friendlydefinitions for v/ordparts

1. Identify ward parts thatcontribute to the term'smeaning

promote students' awareness of genera-tive approaches to attacking words,instructional technology can help gen-eral and special education teachers pri-oritize this type of instruction. The useof instructional technology is not limit-ed to certain time periods like duringthe school day or even to the presenceof the teacher. In addition, teachers caneasily craft the content of instructionaltechnology to only contain relevantinformation and to deliver evidence-based practices.

Using CAPS to Support GenerativeWord Learning Strategies. As we dis-cussed earlier, two issues restrict suc-cess for students with SLD in STEMcourses: ineffective instructional

methods and cumbersome contentdemands. Teachers can address bothissues by using instructional technolo-gy that meets standards for addressingstudent cognitive learning needs—tech-nology that also delivers evidence-based instruction. Many content spe-cialists explicitly teach students aboutcommon word parts (such as prefixesand suffixes and roots) as part of theirvocabulary instruction; however, teach-ers may limit or skip such instructionwhen pressures mount to cover thecurriculum.

To address this problem of practice,teachers may find the CAPs processhelpful. When presented together,CAPs' combination of images and

synced narration constitute an instruc-tional application of technology thatteachers—and students, their parents,and other teachers—can use over andover in various settings and time peri-ods. For example, students who did notshow good progress on course assign-ments and other curriculum-basedmeasures could be assigned to watchCAPs as part of remediation. AlthoughCAPs would involve an upfront cost ofproduction time, schools can createCAPs for the high-priority morphemesand vocabulary terms for entire cours-es. Previous research using CAPs (e.g.,Kennedy, 2011) reports that thisinstructional tool can successfullypackage and deliver explicit and strate-

30 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

gic vocabulary instruction for studentswith SLD. Please visit www.vimeo.com/37764041 to see a short video thatdemonstrates how GAPs can packageand deliver an evidence-based wordlearning strategy.

Explicit and StrategicVocabulary Instruction

The average adolescent encounters anaverage of 10,000 new words a year.Most of these new and unfamiliarwords are multisyllabic, and carry themeaning of the passages they appear in(Baumann, Kame'enui, &. Ash, 2003).Vocabulary knowledge includes auto-matically recognizing words andattaching meaning, as well as usingwords effectively to foster comprehen-sion (Faggella-Luby & Deshler, 2008).Because vocabulary knowledge, likereading words accurately and fluently,has a strong relationship with compre-hension (Kamil et al., 2008), spendingtime on explicit and strategic vocabu-lary instruction is critical to incorporatein content area instruction.

Vocabulary learning in STEM class-rooms is extremely important becausemany terms and concepts are multisyl-labic and do not have obvious anchorsto students' existing knowledge. Exam-ples of complex terms from variousSTEM flelds are tessellation, ignim-brite, hysteresis, and dodecahedron. Ifany of these terms appeared in anassigned reading, or was a vocabularyterm, students with literacy challengeswould likely skip over the term, andthus, potentially lose the meaning ofthe sentence or paragraph. Thus,teachers cannot simply hope studentswith SLD will learn the massive num-ber of new terms and conceptsthrough a combination of listeningduring lectures, looking terms up in adictionary/glossary, or through inde-pendent reading. An example of evi-dence-based vocabulary strategy is thekeyword mnemonic strategy (Scruggs,Mastropieri, Berkeley, & Graetz, 2011).

Keyword Mnemonic Strategy. Thekeyword mnemonic strategy (KMS) hasa strong empirical record of effective-ness for helping students with SLDimprove their vocabulary performancein content area classrooms (Scruggs et

al., 2011). When students cannotremember a vocabulary term or con-cept, such as biodegradable, they canuse KMS as a remembering strategy.First, teachers or students select anacoustically similar "keyword" thatsounds like the original term, but iseasier to remember and is deflnable bythe student user. Given our example, apossible keyword for biodegradable is"buy the cradle." "Buy the cradle" is agood keyword in that it sounds likebiodegradable, and every user is likelyto be able to picture someone buying acradle for a baby. An image is thendrawn, found, or otherwise constructed(using a combination of online images)that depicts the keyword interactingwith the deñnition of the originalunknown vocabulary term. For exam-ple, a picture of a man with a sack ofmoney standing next to a cradle withrecycling symbols on it would cue thestudent user to remember that bio-degradable (buy the cradle) is some-thing that can be broken down innature. If the student encountered theterm biodegradable in text or during alecture and could not remember theterm, they would be explicitly taught to

provided in a GAP containing the KMSshould explain why this strategy is sopowerful and give students a rationalefor learning. This is an example ofexplicit instruction (Archer & Hughes,2011) that should accompany the useof any strategy (Deshler & Shumaker,2006). Please visit www.vimeo.com/37765820 to see an example of theKMS being used in the GAP format.

Connection to the CAP-4-STEMFramework. The evidence-based prac-tices for word learning reviewed in thisbrief discussion are reflected in thefour steps of the GAP-4-STEM frame-work. Practitioners seeking to createGAPs should visit http://people.virginia.edu/ ~ mjk3p/ and chck onthe Vocabulary Instruction eWorksheet(VIeW) flle to see a menu of evidence-based practices, such as morphemicanalysis (Reed, 2008), that may beincorporated into GAPs. The VIeW willhelp STEM teachers who are consider-ing creating GAPs incorporate appro-priate evidence-based practices intovocabulary instruction. On the sameweb site, click on the GAP AdherenceWorksheet, which helps teachers dur-ing and after production of GAPs

Vocabulary learning in STEM classrooms is extremely

important because many terms and concepts are multisyllabic and

do not have obvious anchors to students' existing knowledge.

remember the silly image presented bythe KMS, and its embedded remember-ing system. You can learn more aboutthe KMS from studies by Mastropieriand Scruggs (e.g., Mastropieri, Scruggs,& Levin, 1987).

The KMS lends itself well to repur-posing with instructional technologygiven its reliance on visualization.Thus, GAPs may be a good choice forpackaging and delivering the KMSbecause it relies on visuals and narra-tion to provide explicit instruction.Teachers can find some images usingwww.google.com/images or othersearch engines and can use simpleediting tools when necessary to showtwo different images interacting ascalled for in the KMS. The narration

ensure that each video contains evi-dence-based practices, and alsoadheres to Mayer's principles forinstructional design.

The Seductive Ncrtureof Multimedia

Too often, teachers select multimedia-based materials "off the rack" (e.g.,from www.YouTube.com or otheronhne sources, such as the KhanAcademy; www.khanacademy.org)because they are usually free, areseemingly efflcient, and are frequentlyfound to be engaging by many users.For example, watch the flrst 60 secondsof a video on photorespiration from theKhan Academy, but as you do, putyourself in the shoes of a student with

TEAGHING EXCEPTIONAL GHILDREN | MAR/APR 2013 31

Online Content Acquisition Podcasts (CAPs) Resources

https://vimeo.com/49191997A sample CAP that teaches the meaning of the term photosynthesis.

http://vimeo.com/24179998A CAP on how to create CAPs using PowerPoint (part 1).

http://vimeo.com/24182724A CAP on how to create CAPs using PowerPoint (part 2).

http://people.virginia.edu/ ~ mjk3p/Production steps available in written form.

http://people.virginia.edu/ ~ mjk3p/A menu of evidence-based practices that may be incorporated into CAPs.

www.vimeo.com/37764041A short video that demonstrates how CAPs can package and deliver anevidence-based word learning strategy.

www.vimeo.com/37765820An example of the keyword mnemonic strategy (KMS) being used in the CAPformat.

SLD in an area related to reading orlanguage processing: http://www. khanacademy. org/science/biology/v/photorespiration. An average stu-dent with SLD would likely be com-pletely overwhelmed by the sheer vol-ume of complex vocabulary, formulas,and the pace and duration (-viz min-utes) of instruction. This is not toargue that Mr. Khan's (and other simi-lar) videos are of poor quahty, orshould not be used with children—asadult learners without disabilities wefind them to be quite outstanding andserve a clear purpose. That said, wewish to make the point that when gen-eral and special education teachers donot carefully evaluate the languagedemands and other "looks andsounds" of muhimedia instructionthrough the lens of how students withSLD will respond, the door is openedfor students to be as cognitively over-whelmed as if the instruction wasbeing provided with an inconsideratein-class lecture. In contrast, CAPs pro-vide a mechanism for packaging anddelivering evidence-based instructionalpractices to students with disabilitiesusing a proven method for promotingactive cognitive processing. Please seeKennedy and Deshler (2010) for anexplanation of how the cognitive char-acteristics of students with SLD are

supported by Mayer's design principlesand a further discussion of other multi-media-based instruction that can helpstudents with SLD make critical learn-ing gains.

Final Thoughts

STEM courses can present unique chal-lenges to students with SLD and otherswho struggle. These challenges are theresult of complex textbooks and otherreading requirements, cross-curricularlearning opportunities, the need forstrong background knowledge, and alack of basic literacy skills. Teachers inthe STEM areas may be aware thatincorporating reading strategy instruc-tion into their classes may be beneficialfor helping all students access content.In addition, they know that incorporat-ing word-learning strategies, such asstrategies to decode and attach mean-ing to multisyllabic words, is importantfor helping students acquire the con-tent knowledge they are responsible forcovering. As special educators, we fre-quently play a key role in facilitatingthe design and delivery of this type ofinstruction.

Many STEM teachers design anduse creative instructional tools, includ-ing assistive and instructional technol-ogy, to support students. Providingmultimedia-based instruction reflects

vahdated instructional design princi-ples, but teachers of students whostruggle need to pay specific attention(Kennedy & Deshler, 2010) to the indi-vidualized needs of students with SLDand other challenges. In other words,teachers should not assume that allinstructional design is automaticallyindividualized and capable of provid-ing the type of direct, explicit, and evi-dence-based reading instructionreviewed in this article and noted inreviews and syntheses of literature(e.g., Edmonds et a l , 2009; Wexler,Vaughn, Edmonds, & Reutebuch,2008). STEM teachers can meet theindividualized needs of students byincorporating ongoing, systematic, evi-dence-based reading instruction.

Through reflection, general and spe-cial education teachers can evaluatethe extent to which their instruction isproviding the level of support studentswith SLD need to be successful. Ifteachers flnd that instruction is a mis-match for students' learning needs, onestrategy that may be of assistance isCAPs. These supports are free to createand can be used in many flexible ways.(See box, "Online CAPs Resources" fora listing of additional resources.) How-ever, any use of assistive or instruction-al technology should first be reconciledwith respect to the goals and objectivesof the student's individualized educa-tion program (IEP) and be evakiated todetermine the extent to which it canhelp students gain access to, and makemeaningful progress in, the generaleducation curriculum.

ReferencesArcher, A. L., Gleason, M. M., & Vachon, V.

L. (2003). Decoding and fluency: Founda-tion skills for struggling older readers.Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 89-101.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1593592

Archer, A, L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Expli-dt instruction—Effective and efficientteaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Baumann, J. F., Kame'enui, E. J., & Ash, G.E. (2003). Research on vocabularyinstruction: Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, D.Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.),Handbook of research on teaching theEnglish language arts (2nd ed., pp.752-785). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bhattacharya, A., & Ehri, L. C. (2004).Graphosyllabic analysis helps adolescentstruggling readers read and spell words.

32 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Joumai of Learning Disabilities. 37,331-348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370040501

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Read-ing next—A vision for action andresearch in middle and high school litera-cy: A report to the Camegie Corporationof New York. Washington, DC: Alliancefor Excellent Education.

Brigham, F. J., Scruggs, T E., & Mastropieri,M. A. (2011). Science education and stu-dents with learning disabilities. LeamingDisabilities Research and Practice. 26,223-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.llll/ j . 1540-5826.2011.00343 .x

Deshler, D. D., & Shumaker, J. B. (2006).High school students with disabilities:Strategies for accessing the curriculum.New York, NY: Corwin Press.

Ebbers, S. M., & Dentón, C. A. (2008). Aroot awakening: Vocabulary instructionfor older students with reading difficul-ties. Leaming Disabilities Research andPractice. 23. 90-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00267.x

Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J.,Reutebuch, C. K., Cable, A., Tackett, K.K., & Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A syn-thesis of reading interventions and effectson reading comprehension outcomes forolder struggling readers. Review of Educa-tional Research, 79. 262-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998

Faggella-Luby, M. N., & Deshler, D. D.(2008). Reading comprehension in ado-lescents with LD: What we know; whatwe need to learn. Leam.ing DisabilitiesResearch & Practice. 23, 70-78. http://dx.doi.org/lO.lUl/j.1540-5826.2008.00265.x

Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008).Reading in secondary content areas—A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor,MI: University of Michigan Press.

Hallahan, D. P., Lloyd, J. W, Kauffman, J.M., Weiss, M. P, & Martinez, E. A.(2005). Leaming disabilities: Founda-tions, characteristics, and effective teach-ing (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA:AUyn & Bacon.

Harris, M. L., Shumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D.D. (2011). The effects of strategic mor-phological analysis instruction on thevocabulary performance of secondarystudents with and without disabilities.Leaming Disability Quarterly, 34. 17-34.

Kamil, M. L., Borman, C. D., Dole, 1., Krai,C. C, Salinger, T, & Torgesen, J. (2008).Improving adolescent literacy: Effectiveclassroom and intervention practices:A Practice Guide (NCEE #2008-4027).Washington, DC: National Center forEducation Evaluation and Regional Assis-tance, Institute of Education Sciences,U.S. Department of Education. Retrievedfrom http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.

Kennedy, M. J. (2011). Effects of contentacquisition podcasts on vocabulary per-

fomiance of secondary students with andwithout leaming disabilities. (DoctoralDissertation). Retrieved from UMI Pro-quest Dissertations & Theses. (3458221).

Kennedy, M. J., & Deshler, D. D. (2010).Literacy instruction, technology, and stu-dents with learning disabilities: Researchwe have, research we need. LeamingDisability Quarterly, 33. 289-298.

Kennedy, M. J., Newton, J. R., Haines, S. J.,Walther-Thomas, C. S., & Kellems, R. O.(2012). A triarchic model for teaching"Introduction to special education": Casestudies, content acquisition podcasts, andeffective feedback. Journal of Technologyand Teacher Education. 20, 251-275.

Kennedy, M. J., & Thomas, C. N. (2012).Effects of content acquisition podcasts todevelop preservice teachers' knowledgeof positive behavioral interventions andsupports. Exceptionality, 20, 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09362835.20n.611088

Lee, C. D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading inthe disciplines: The challenge of adoles-cent literacy. New York, NY: CarnegieCorporation of New York.

Mason, L. H., & Hedin, L. (2011). Readingscience text: Challenges for students withlearning disabilities and considerationsfor teachers. Leaming DisabilitiesResearch and Practice. 26. 214-222.http://dx.doi.Org/10.llll/j.1540-5826.2011.00342.x

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Levin,J. R. (1987). Learning-disabled students'memory for expository prose: Mnemonicversus nonmnemonic pictures. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 24,505-519.

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science oflearning: Evidence-based principles forthe design of multimedia instruction.American Psychologist, 63, 760-769.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.760

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia leaming(2nd ed.). New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Reed, D. K. (2008). A synthesis of morphol-ogy interventions and effects on readingoutcomes for students in grades K-12.Leaming Disabilities Research & Practice,23. 36-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.llll/j.1540-5826.2007.00261.x

Roberts, G., Torgesen, J. K., Boardman, A.,& Scammacca, N. (2008). Evidence-basedstrategies for reading instruction of olderstudents with learning disabilities.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,23. 63-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.llll/J.1540-5826.2008.00264.X

Scruggs, T E., Mastropieri, M. A., Berkeley,S., & Graetz, J. E. (2011). Do special edu-cation interventions improve learning ofsecondary content? Remedial and SpecialEducation. 31. 437-449. http://dx.doi.org/:10.1177/0741932508327465

Shanahan, T, & Shanahan, C. (2008).Teaching disciplinary literacy to adoles-cents: Rethinking content-area literacy.Harvard Educational Review. 78, 40-59.

Strangman, N., & Dalton, B. (2005). Usingtechnology to support struggling readers:A review of the research. In D. Edyburn,K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook

of special education technology research

and practice (pp. 545-570). WhitefishBay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

Swanson, H. L. (2001). Research on inter-ventions for adolescents with learningdisabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomesrelated to higher-order processing. The

Elementary School Joumai, 101. 331-348.http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/499671

Therrien, W. J., Taylor, J. C , Hosp, J. L.,Kaldenberg, E., R., & Gorsh, J. (2011).Science instruction for students withlearning disabilities: A meta-analysis.Leaming Disabilities Research and Prac-

tice, 26. 188-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1in/j.l540-5826.2011.00340.x

Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Roberts, G., Barth, A.A., Cirino, P. T, Romain, M. A &

Dentón, C. (2011). Effects of individual-ized and standardized interventions onmiddle school students with reading dis-abilities. Exceptional Children, 77,

391-408.

Villanueva, M. G., & Hand, B. (2011).Science for all: Engaging students withspecial needs in and about science.Leaming Disabilities Research and

Practice, 26. 233-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.l540-5826.2011.00344.x

Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., &Reutebuch, C. K. (2008). A synthesis offluency interventions for secondary strug-gling readers. Reading and Writing: An

Interdisciplinary Journal, 21. 317-347.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/slll45-007-9085-7

Michael J. Kennedy (Virginia CEC),

Assistant Professor, Curry School of

Education. University of Virginia.

Charlottesville. Jade Wexler (Maryland

CEC), Assistant Professor, Depariment of

Special Education, University of Maryland,

College Park.

Address correspondence concerning this arti-

cle to Michael Kennedy, Curry School of

Education, University of Virginia. Bavaro

Hall Room 327, Charlottesville. VA 22904

(e-mail: [email protected]).

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 45,

No. 4, pp. 26-33.

Copyright 2013 CEC

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN MAR/APR 2013 33

Copyright of Teaching Exceptional Children is the property of Council for Exceptional Children 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.