This article discusses a strand of research conducted by the Education Development Center, Inc. in collaboration with the National Center for Supported Electronic Text. The research investigated the use of an online vocabulary support tool, Visual Thesaurus, for middle school students with and without disabilities. Data were collected from 10 eighth grade inclusive classrooms using a randomized control trial to compare the impact of Visual Thesaurus and Merriam-Webster OnLine on vocabulary and content knowledge from two social studies textbook chapters. Data analysis revealed significant posttest gains for students in both conditions, but no significant difference between the two treatments. Discussion focuses on the need for online vocabulary support tools to align with student needs and teacher expectations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottM.GreenwoodC. R.BuzhardtJ.TapiaY. (2006). Using technology-based teacher support tools to scale up the Class-Wide Peer Tutoring Program. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22(1), 47–64.
2.
AinslieD. (2001). Word detectives. The Reading Teacher, 54, 360–62.
3.
Anderson-InmanL. (2004). Reading on the Web: Making the most of digital text. Wisconsin State Reading Association Journal, 44(2), 8–14.
4.
Anderson-InmanL. (2009). Supported eText: Literacy scaffolding for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(3), 1–7.
5.
Anderson-InmanL.HorneyM. (1996/1997). Computer-based concept mapping: Enhancing literacy with tools for visual thinking. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40, 302–306.
6.
Anderson-InmanL.HorneyM. (1997). Electronic books for secondary students. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40, 486–491.
7.
Anderson-InmanL.HorneyM. (1998). Transforming text for at-risk readers. In ReinkingD.LabboL.McKennaM.KiefferR. (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 15–43). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
Anderson-InmanL.HorneyM. (2007) Supported etext: Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 153–160.
9.
Anderson-InmanL.ZeitzL. (1993, August). Computer-based concept mapping: Active studying for active learner. The Computer Teacher, 6–8, 10–11.
10.
BartonM. L.HeidemaC. (2002). Teaching reading in mathematics (2nd ed). Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
11.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. G.KucanL. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford.
12.
BeersS.HowellL. (2003). Reading strategies for the content areas: An ASCD action tool. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
13.
BiancarosaG.SnowC. E. (2006). Reading Next—a vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
14.
BilligS. H.SherryL.HavelockB. (2005). Challenge 98: Sustaining the work of a regional technology integration initiative. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 987–1003.
15.
BlumenfeldP.FishmanB. J.KrajcikJ.MarxR. W. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35, 149–164.
16.
BooneR.HigginsK. (2003). Reading, writing, and publishing digital text. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 132–140.
17.
CastellaniJ. D.JeffsT. (Spring, 2001). Reading and Writing: Teaching Strategies, Technology Tools, and the Internet. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(5), 60–67.
18.
CEO Forum. (2000). The power of digital learning: Integrating digital content. The CEO Forum school technology and readiness report, year three. Washington, DC: CEO Forum on Education and Technology.
19.
DaleE. (1965). Vocabulary measurement: Techniques and major findings. Elementary English, 42, 895–901, 948.
20.
ErtmerP. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
21.
Gaynor-EllisE.EslerA. (2001). World history: Connections to today. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22.
GlazerE.HannafinM. J.SongL. (2005). Promoting technology integration through collaborative apprenticeship. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 57–67.
23.
LehrF.OsbornJ.HiebertE. H. (2004). A focus on vocabulary. Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. Retrieved July 8, 2009, from http://www.prel.org/products/re_/ES0419.htm.
MoroccoC.ZorfassJ. (1988). Technology and transformation: A naturalistic study of special needs students and computers in the middle school. Journal of Special Education Technology, 9(2), 88–97.
28.
National Center to Improve Practice. (1998). Education Development Center, 1992–1998. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www2.edc.org/NCIP/more_top.htm.
29.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00–4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
30.
Northeast and the Islands Regional Technology in Education Consortium. (2004). Report on teaching children to read. Retrieved July 19, 2009, from http://www.neirtec.org/reading_report/.
31.
PriceB.CatesW. M.BodzinA. (2002June). Challenges in implementing technology-rich curricular high school biology materials: First year findings from the “Exploring Life” project. Paper presented at the 23rd National Educational Computing Conference, San Antonio, TX.
32.
RoyerR. (2002). Supporting technology integration through action research. The Clearing House, 75, 233–237.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The condition of education 2007 (NCES 2007–064). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
WaxmanH. C.TellezK. (2002). Effective teaching practices for English language learners. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from http://www.temple.edu/lss/.
37.
ZorfassJ. (2001). Sustaining a curriculum innovation: Cases to make it happen! In WoodwardJ.CubanL. (Eds.), Technology, curriculum and professional development: Adapting schools to meet the needs of students with disabilities (pp. 87–114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
ZorfassJ.ShafferC. G.RiveroH. K. (2003). Leading inDeed: Guidelines for Implementing the STAR Tech Program of Professional Development. Retrieved on July 31, 2009, from https://secure.edc.org/publications/prodview.asp?1578.
44.
ZorfassJ.RiveroH. (2005). Collaboration is key: How a community of practice promotes technology integration. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(1), 51–67.
