Topics presented in content area courses at the secondary level are often comprised of specialized and/or multiple-meaning vocabulary terms that can challenge students’ understanding. Additionally, gaps in relevant knowledge from prior learning experiences in earlier grade levels may further impede comprehension of content area concepts. This is often the case for students with disabilities and culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students who tend to struggle in secondary content area classes due to learning barriers related to disability, culture, language, or the intersection of these student characteristics. Content Acquisition Podcasts for Students (CAP-S) is a multimedia tool that has been effective in increasing vocabulary knowledge among students with disabilities. However, this article provides a detailed description of how CAP-S embed instructional practices that are effective for students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds, and includes a step-by-step guide to support practitioners in creating and recording their own CAP-S vocabulary lessons to increase success among CLD students with disabilities participating in secondary content area classrooms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnnammaS. A.FerriB. A.ConnorD. J. (2018). Disability critical race theory: Exploring the intersectional lineage, emergence, and potential futures of DisCrit in education. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 46–71. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18759041
2.
ArcherA. L.HughesC. A. (2011). Explicit instruction – Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford.
3.
ArtilesA. J.KozleskiE. B.TrentS. C.OsherD.OrtizA. (2010). Justifying and explaining dis-proportionality, 1968-2008: A critique of underlying views of culture. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600303
4.
BabinoA.AraujoJ. J.MaxwellM. L. (2019). Critical, compelling, and linguistically scaffolded literature: Implementing text sets multilingually for social justice. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 7(1), 44–64.
5.
BarkerH. B.GrassiE. (2011). Culturally relevant practices for the special education eligibility process. AccELLerate, 3(3), 2–4.
6.
CarlisleJ. F.KelceyB.BerebitskyD. (2013). Teachers’ support of students’ vocabulary learning during literacy instruction in high poverty elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 50(6), 1360–1391. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213492844
7.
CervettiG. N.HiebertE. H.PearsonP. D.McClungN. A. (2015). Factors that influence the difficulty of science words. Journal of Literacy Research, 47(2), 153–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X15615363
8.
CrossonA. C.HughesE. M.BlanchetteF.ThomasC. (2020). What’s the point? Emergent bilinguals’ understanding of multiple-meaning words that carry everyday and discipline-specific mathematical meanings. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 36(2), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2020.1715312
9.
GayG. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students: Setting the stage. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(6), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839022000014349
10.
GoodwinA. P.AhnS. (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: Effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-010-0041-x
11.
HammondZ. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching & the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin, A SAGE Company.
12.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
13.
KatzL. A.CarlisleJ. F. (2009). Teaching students with reading difficulties to be close readers: A feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/07-0096)
14.
KennedyM. J.DeshlerD. D.LloydJ. W. (2015). Effects of multimedia vocabulary instruction on adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413487406
15.
KennedyM. J.IhleF. M. (2012). The old man and the sea: Navigating the gulf between special educators and the content area classroom. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(1), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00349.x
16.
KennedyM. J.ThomasC. N.MeyerJ. P.AlvesK. D.LloydJ. W. (2014). Using evidence-based multimedia to improve vocabulary performance of adolescents with LD: A UDL approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37, 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713507262
17.
KentS.WanzekJ.SwansonE. A.VaughnS. (2015). Team-based learning for students with high-incidence disabilities in high school social studies classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12048
18.
KlingnerJ. K.BoardmanA. G.EppolitoA. M.SchonewiseE. A. (2012). Supporting adolescent English language learners’ reading in the content areas. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 10(1), 35–64.
19.
LesauxN. K.KiefferM. J.FallerS. E.KelleyJ. G. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 196–228. https://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3
20.
LiasidouA. (2013). Bilingual and special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: Some critical and pedagogical considerations. Support for Learning, 28(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12010
21.
LoganJ. K.KiefferM. J. (2017). Evaluating the role of polysemous word knowledge in reading comprehension among bilingual adolescents. Reading and Writing, 30, 1687–1704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9745-1
22.
MargolisJ.MeeseA. A.DoringA. (2016). Do teachers need structure or freedom to effectively teach urban students? A review of the educational debate. Education and Urban Society, 48(9), 783–806. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124516630791
23.
MayerR.E. (2020). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
24.
NagyW.TownsendD. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011
25.
SmithJ. L. M.SáezL.DoablerC. T. (2016). Using explicit and systematic instruction to support working memory. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 48(6), 275–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916650633
26.
SwansonH. L.LussierC. M.OroscoM. J. (2015). Cognitive strategies, working memory, and growth in word problem solving in children with math difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413498771
27.
VanUitertV. J.KennedyM. J.RomigJ. E.GriendlingL. M. (2020). Enhancing science vocabulary knowledge of students with learning disabilities using explicit instruction and multimedia. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 18(1), 3–25.
28.
WrightT. S.NeumanS. B. (2014). Paucity and disparity in kindergarten oral vocabulary instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 46, 330–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X14551474
