Ginny Cronin EDTECH 504

Selected Research on the Use of Instructional and Assistive Technology for Students with Learning Disabilities: An Annotated Bibliography.
Research on the use of technology in education always struggles to keep up with the ever changing technology which it seeks to study. Technology is in a constant state of flux; hence, researchers have been challenged to conduct appropriate experimental testing of interventions before they are outdated or made irrelevant by advances in hardware and software. (Kennedy & Deshler, 2010) In the area of learning disabilities and technology, the research is especially sparse. Still, these students are at significant risk. The National Longitudinal Transition Study II, found that: (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" (Kennedy & Deshler, 2010). Some research does exist which examines which tools and approaches have demonstrated effectiveness and follow best practice models of helping students with learning disabilities. However, most authors agreed that use of technology cannot compensate for instruction that is poorly designed or implemented. (Blackhurst, 2005) This annotated bibliography will provide an overview of some of these findings and their applicability to serving this population,.

Literacy Instruction, Technology, and Students with Learning Disabilities: Research We Have, Research We Need.
Kennedy, M. J., & Deshler, D. D. (2010). Literacy Instruction, Technology, and Students with Learning Disabilities: Research We Have, Research We Need. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 289+. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5048828025 This article provided a thorough overview of the current state of research in the use of technology to promote literacy and learning for students with learning disabilities. They emphasized that the use of technology ought not to be viewed as a crutch for these students but rather as a tool. With changing definitions of literacy, it becomes imperative to link technology tools to the particular needs of the learner and the content while keeping in mind theories of multimedia learning such as visual and auditory processing and cognitive load. Students with LD need instruction that actively reflects on and addresses limitations with respect to processing speed, working memory, and overall reading performance. (Kennedy & Deshler, 2010). They recommend several principles which propose that the use of technology with this population consider an RTI approach which includes evidence-based practices as well as instructional design frameworks, with special attention given to the micromanagement of literally every image and sound that is presented to students during multimedia instruction (Kennedy & Deshler, 2010). This article wisely goes beyond researching individual technology

resources, and rather focuses on the principles likely to make any resource valuable or practical. By providing evaluative e principles, it makes a worthy contribution to the discussion.

Perspectives on Applications of Technology in the Field of Learning Disabilities

Blackhurst, A. E. (2005). Perspectives on Applications of Technology in the Field of Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(2), 175+. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5009482706 In this article, Blackhurst promotes the idea that technology is a tool for the delivery of instruction. He summarizes that the best practices in teaching students with learning disabilities as: instructional approaches that are systematically designed and applied in very precise waysincluding well-defined objectives, precise instructional procedures small units of instruction that are carefully sequenced, a high degree of teacher activity, high levels of student involvement, liberal use of reinforcement, and careful monitoring of student performance. (Blackhurst, 2005) He suggests that technology which makes use of these approaches is similarly effective with this population. He points out that IDEA make is incumbent upon schools to consider assistive technology as a possible support for every student who has an IEP. He observes that choices of technology support for students are often made based on what is available or well known in a district rather than on a careful study of what is the best fit for a given situation. Such careful evaluation of technology resources His overview of these movements in educational technology for students with learning disabilities displays his passion and involvement, but lacks rigor and adequate reference to studies with empirical data.

Technology-based practices for secondary students with learning disabilities

Maccini, P., Gagnon, J. C., & Hughes, C. A. (2002). Technology-Based Practices for Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities.Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(4), 247+. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000655652 This comprehensive review of the literature took a look at technology-based practices for secondary students with learning disabilities, and evaluated how these interventions affected test performance. The authors noted that technology increases student access to curriculum, improves academic achievement, motivation and prosocial behaviors among students in regular education, however its impact on student learning disabilities has been less carefully reviewed. They addressed both technology-based assessments and technology-based interventions including assessment formats, verbatim text recordings and computer-based instruction. Researchers found that students identified as learning disabled scored significantly better in many exercises wherein there instruction was computer-aided with opportunity for frequent and instantaneous

feedback and multiple trials. The researchers note that many effective teaching variables were embedded with in phases of the instructional cycle (Maccini, Gagnon & Hughes 2002). and it was therefore difficult to ferret out as to which of these variables were most important in the research outcomes. Nonetheless several principles emerged from the study. Instructional technology was found more effective for students when it allowed students to self select the level of support they needed, allow for repetitive interaction with the learning materials, provided clear and timely feedback, allows students to review instruction as needed, and focused on factual questions rather than those required interpretation. Researchers also found that students with learning disabilities comprehend text more completely when they both read and listened to it or only listened to it, and did more poorly when they were allowed to only read it. When the text comprehension evaluated was longer, more in depth, or over a longer period of time students with learning disabilities did not comprehend well in either the read and listen intervention or the listen only intervention. The researchers determined that students with learning disabilities would need more scaffolding than merely a change in the presentation of material. In the area of math, the researchers found the computeraided instruction, hypertext study guides and hypermedia study guides to present new material and guide practice was effective for students with learning disabilities. Overall, the researchers found that quote technology-based interventions are promising however they must be viewed in light of four important limitations: the relatively few studies reviewed; the level of student proficiency following intervention; the lack of maintenance checks on generalization measures; and a limited number of content areas studied. (Maccini, Gagnon & Hughes 2002). The researchers found that when technology embodied best practices, it tended to have positive impacts on student learning. Perhaps many forms of technology merely make best practice instruction more reliable, more fluid, and more available for students learning disabilities. Technology it would seem would make the presentation of best practice behaviors less dependent on the moment to moment performance of the teacher. The authors conclude that , now more than ever, technology is a valuable tool with great potential for assisting student's labeled LD. (Maccini, Gagnon & Hughes 2002)

The role of technology in the transition to postsecondary education of students with learning disabilities: a review of the literature.
Mull, C. A., & Sitlington, P. L. (2003). The Role of Technology in the Transition to Postsecondary Education of Students with Learning Disabilities: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 26+. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001925059 In this article, Mull and Sitlington Mull and Sitlington research available about the use of technology for students with learning disabilities in post secondary education. The authors provide a nice overview of the use of technology in education beginning with the use of prosthetics the 1950s for soldiers returning from war and proceeding up through the year 2000. The areas of technology usage for students with learning disabilities focused primarily on written language and reading as well as spelling, organization and

memory all of which create significant demands for the students. The authors noted that assistive technology in the area of mathematics was almost completely unrepresented. Encouragingly the study looked at not only high tech interventions but also many low cost, low tech interventions. I find this to be important especially because so many students must work with technology before finding out if it is good fit for them. It only makes sense to include low-tech low-cost technologies first. Their research indicated five problems in the use of technology by students with learning disabilities: view by outsiders that the use of assistive technology was a crutch; high costs; abandonment of the device by the students themselves; the training needed; and questions about eligibility. This article included a meaningful discussion about whether technology exists as a prosthetic, which replaces the students need to conquer the material or skill; or whether the technology exists as a partner, supporting the student in his attempt to master independently the material and/or skill. One important finding was that, The student must believe that there is a problem that needs to be solved and that the proposed technology-based solution is effective. (Mull and Sitlington, 2003). Most studies found that students in the post secondary educational environment needed to be carefully involved in the selection of their assistive technology and trained appropriately. In all, these authors found support for the following interventions: Spell check, online dictionary, online thesaurus, Word prediction software, voice recognition software, spellcheck and grammar check programs, tape recorder for notes, software is which enables readers to change the size and background of text, screen readers, graphic organizers, personal organizer software, noise blocking headphones, talking dictionaries and talking calculators. One of the most important findings in this survey of the research was that, approximately half of the students with learning disabilities in high school who were participating in their 2-year study were no longer considered eligible for special education services. With sufficient access to assistive technology and instruction on how to use it, the students were able to achieve at their grade-level expectations... which provides a strong recommendation for the students. (Mull and Sitlington, 2003).

Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort. Washington, DC: Institute for Education Sciences.
Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L. Means, B., Murphy, R., Penuel, W., Javitz, H., Emery, D., & Sussex, W. (2007, March). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort. Washington, DC: Institute for Education Sciences. As this study looked at 16 technology products commonly used in American classrooms to provide instruction in the first and fourth grade reading and sixth grade and algebra math instruction. Although teachers self-selected their classrooms to become involved,

possibly skewing the results, the findings were less than impressive. In general there was no benefit found in any of the classrooms where the technology products were used for reading or math instruction on standardized tests. Unfortunately a closer reading of the data indicates that these products were used for only 10 to 11% of instructional time. This may not be providing a full view of what these products could do if used more consistently and more thoroughly. However the researchers did find that more time on the targeted products did not result in higher test scores, but these differences in time were still relatively small. With the researchers did find was that smaller student-teacher ratios it the greatest difference in terms of test scores. The first grade technology products for reading were Destination Reading; The Waterford

Early Reading Program; Headsprout; Plato Focus; and the Academy of Reading. The tools used as fourth grade reading technology products were; Leapfrog; Read 180; Academy of Reading; and Knowledge Box. The mass products used for the sixth-grade study included; Larson Pre-Algebra; Achieve Now; and ILearn Math. The algebra math technology products included; Cognitive Tutor Algebra; Plato Algebra; and Larson Algebra. While each of these technology products certainly has its benefits, I question whether this study determines the effectiveness of reading and math software products or only of these particular products. So much other research has found that technology cannot make up for poor instructional design. I question instructional design of these products if they in fact were no more effective.

Response to Intervention and Evidence-Based Practices: Where Does Technology Fit?.

Smith, S. J., & Okolo, C. (2010). Response to Intervention and Evidence-Based Practices: Where Does Technology Fit?.Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 257+. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5048828014 This study looked at the role of technology in RT I, or response to intervention models for special education. They focused on three forms of technology: graphic organizers, written instruction, and explicit instruction. Hoping to find that technology would provide an evidence-based practice for special education the researchers explored a variety of literature. They found support for the use of word processing for students with learning distilled abilities as one of three main research-based interventions that had a lot of empirical support. They also recommended programs which include features that make them customizable to the individual learner, tracking the learner's performance from response to response, conducting error analyses, and looking for patterns of responses. (Smith and Okolo, 2010). What a piece of research is done it looks at so many different pieces of technology that the results are almost unhelpful. It is difficult to tell whether the technology itself or the instructional model which designed the

technology is at fault in terms of not providing results. Results also indicate that the use of the technology within the hands of a skilled or unskilled teacher makes a significant difference. They claim that define good research we will have to, to link features of technology to specific types of effective instruction. (Smith and Okolo, 2010). There were few programs which evaluated and evidence-based practice presented without technology and that exact same evidence-based practice presented with technology. Finding recommendations based on the features of particular technology product, was most helpful part of this article. This is the kind of research currently needed in the field.

Premises, Principles, and Processes for Integrating Technology into Instruction

King-Sears, M. E., & Evmenova, A. S. (2007, September/October). Premises, Principles and Processes for Integrating Technology into Instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40, 6+. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5035226637

(King-Sears and Evmenova, 2007)

This article provided a review of literature in terms of the integration of technology and effective strategies for doing so for students with learning disabilities. The authors recommended several applications including a reading pen because it both developed skills and compensated for a lack of skills. They discussed the need for students to become fluent with the use of their technology and the need for students to generalize their technology skills and to everyday applications including homework. They voice a concern that in some schools assistive technology or instructional technology devices are not allowed to be taken home with students thereby reducing the opportunities for generalization and fluency.The authors note that uses some educational technology requires more teacher supervision and redirection than might be expected. Just because a student is looking at the screen, does not mean that he's interacting with the technology. Programs which require constant interaction and evaluate student progress based on that interaction are likely to be more effective. Researchers also commented on the importance of multimedia programs with flexible instructional design. Such programs prompt students to review when necessary, provide further instruction when necessary, allow students to move past material that is already mastered or is not challenging enough for them. They point out that though technology enhances the learning process technology itself is not the learning process and that it must not become the focus of education. Realizing that technology evolves and adapts quickly, it is important for educators to weigh the effect or value of particular piece of technology in comparison with technology which may be available in six months for half the cost. The authors identified for principals databases and research for the integration of technology into instruction and these are: choose technologies aligns with curriculum outcomes; match students instructional needs with the technology; she's technology that helps

students blended with peers; and choose the specific piece of technology which is both efficient and cost effective. (King-Sears and Evmenova, 2007)

Introduction to the special issue: insights into the effective and appropriate use of technology in special education.
Edyburn, D. L. (2003). Introduction to the Special Issue: Insights into the Effective and Appropriate Use of Technology in Special Education.Remedial and Special Education, 24(3), 130+. Retrieved March 12, 2012, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001937137

Although the use of technology within special education began with assistive technologies for students with significant sensory or physical impairments, the focus is shifting to instructional technology and universal design strategies (Edyburn, 2003). This shift is specifically helpful for students identified with learning disabilities. The authors of the study point out that reading writing and researching might look very different in the future and that we need as educators to focus on how to help students who struggle to read and write effectively. They cite the need to use productivity tools, presentation software, multimedia tools, and theme software as well as web-based activities to create classrooms that are accessible to a wide population of students within every classroom. They found that the use of integration of technology within classrooms led to higher levels of student engagement and attendance may be made clear out

Use of Computer Technology to Help Students with Special Needs

Hasselbring, Ted S., and Candyce H. Williams Glaser. "Use of Computer Technology to Help Students with Special Needs." The Future of Children 10, no. 2 (2000): 102. Database on-line. Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001209088. Internet. Accessed 12 March 2012. In this article the authors examine the use of technology in the regular classroom, supporting use of word processing, hyperlinks, and web-based activities which build collaboration and knowledge building. They argue that the use of multimedia environment putting hypertext can provide instruction to students who learn best through visual input. However they note that students who struggle with organization of

information can easily be overwhelmed by too much information provided by hypertext's and poorly designed multimedia environments. They discussed the barriers to use with students who have learning disabilities including: lack of training on the part of the teacher, abandonment of the technology based on their feeling different; and costs. They suggest that, technology can enhance a student's acquisition of skills and content knowledge when the computer is used to deliver well-designed and well-managed instruction, making the same point of other researchers have made that techno logy must follow best practices are will not serve to help students. Technology cannot replace good instruction. They point out significant needs of students with learning disabilities for repeated exposure to materials, opportunity for review, and the need for higher levels of immediate feedback to master basic skills. They claim that,"Technology has proven to be an eff ective method of giving such students opportunities to engage in basic drill and practice, simulations, exploratory or communication activities that are matched to their individual needs and abilities. This article supports the findings of many other researchers that three little which is new to the discussion .