This study investigated the effects of alternative narration, highlighted text, picture/word-based captions, and interactive video searching features for improving comprehension of nonfiction academic video clips by students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (ID/DD). Combined multiple baselines across participants and alternating treatment designs were employed to evaluate the factual comprehension by five postsecondary participants with ID/DD. Comprehension was measured by the number of correct oral responses after watching regular, nonadapted videos in the baseline phases, as well as after watching adapted videos and after searching videos for answers via hyperlinks in the treatment and maintenance phases. Findings included: (a) the participants improved their factual comprehension of video content significantly after viewing videos modified with alternative narrations and various captioning adaptations, which resulted in additional significant improvements after students had an opportunity to search the video for answers and adjust their original oral responses; (b) the participants performed equally well regardless of the type of captions (highlighted text or picture/word-based); and (c) there was no significant difference in participant comprehension between motion videos and static images. Adapted videos offer innovative solutions for legally required access and active participation of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities in grade- and subject-linked academic curriculum.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgranM.AlperS.WehmeyerM. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123–133.
2.
AgranM.CavinM.WehmeyerM.PalmerS. (2006). Participation of students with moderate to severe disabilities in the general curriculum: The effects of the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 230–241.
3.
AlbertoP. A.CihakD. F.GamaR. I. (2005). Using of static picture prompts versus video modeling during simulation instruction. Research in Developmental Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26, 327–339.
4.
AyresK. M.LangoneJ. (2002). Acquisition and generalization of purchasing skills using a video enhanced computer-based instructional program. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(4), 15–28.
5.
AyresK. M.LangoneJ.BooneR. T.NormanA. (2006). Computer-based instruction for purchasing skills. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 253–263.
6.
BosterF. J.MeyerG. S.RobertoA. J.LinseyL.SmithR.IngeC. (2006). The impact of video streaming on mathematics performance. Communication Education, 56, 134–144. doi:10.1080/03634520601071801
7.
BrowderD. M.FlowersC.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.KarvonenM.SpoonerF.AlgozzineR. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content to academic and functional curricula. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 211–223. doi:10.1177/00224669040370040101
8.
BrowderD. M.WakemanS. Y.FlowersC.RickelmanR. J.PugaleeD.KarvonenM. (2007). Creating access to the general curriculum with links to grade-level content for students with significant cognitive disabilities: An explication of the concept. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 2–16. doi:10.1177/00224669070410010101
9.
Cannella-MaloneH.SigafoosJ.O'ReillyM.de la CruzB.EdrisinhaC.LancioniG. E. (2006). Comparing video prompting to video modeling for teaching daily living skills to six adults with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 344–356.
10.
ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (1992). The split-attention affect as a factor of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 233–246.
11.
CihakD.AlbertoP. A.Taber-DoughtyT.GamaR. I. (2006). A comparison of static picture prompting and video prompting simulation strategies using group instructional procedures. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 21, 89–99. doi:10.1177/10883576060210020601
12.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1996). Multimedia environments for enhancing learning in mathematics. In VosniadouS.DeCorteE.GlaserR.MandlH. (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 285–306). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
CushingL. S.ClarkN. M.CarterE. W.KennedyC. H. (2005). Access to general education curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(2), 6–13.
14.
DefurS. H. (2002). Education reform, high-stakes assessment, and students with disabilities: One state's approach. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 203–211. doi:10.1177/07419325020230040301
15.
DetheridgeT.DetheridgeM. (2002). Literacy through symbols: Improving access for children and adults (2nd ed.). London: David Fulton.
16.
DymondK. S.OreloveP. F. (2001). What constitutes effective curricula for students with severe disabilities?Exceptionality, 9, 109–122. doi:10.1207/S15327035EX0903_2
17.
EdyburnD. L. (2002, April/May). Cognitive rescaling strategies: Interventions that alter the cognitive accessibility of text. Closing the Gap, 1, 10–11, 21.
18.
FeldmanK.DentiL. (2004). High-access instruction: Practical strategies to increase active learning in diverse classrooms. Focus on Exceptional Children, 36(7), 1–12.
19.
FlowersC.BrowderD. M.Ahlgrim-DelzellL. (2006). An analysis of three states' alignment between language arts and mathematics standards and alternate assessments. Exceptional Children, 72, 201–215.
20.
HasselbringT. S.GlaserC. H. (2000). Use of computer technology to help students with special needs. Future of Children, 10, 102–22. doi:10.2307/1602691
21.
HeckerL.BurnsL.ElkindJ.ElkindK.KatzL. (2002). Benefits of assistive reading software for students with attention disorders. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 243–272. doi:10.1007/s11881-002-0015-8
22.
HineJ. F.WoleryM. (2006). Using point-of-view video modeling to teach play to preschoolers with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26, 83–93. doi:10.1177/02711214 060260020301
23.
HitchcockC. H.PraterM. A.DowrickP. W. (2004). Reading comprehension and fluency: Examining the effects of tutoring and video self-modeling on first-grade students with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 89–103. doi:10.2307/1593644
24.
JonesF. W.LongK.FinlayW. M. L. (2007). Symbols can improve the reading comprehension of adults with learning disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51, 545–550. doi:10.1111/j.1365–2788.2006.00926.x
25.
KinneyE. M.VedoraJ.StromerR. (2003). Computer-presented video models to teach generative spelling to a child with an autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, 22–29. doi:10.1177/10983007030050010301
26.
KoskinenP. S.WilsonR. M.GambrellL. B.NeumanS. B. (1993). Captioned video and vocabulary learning: An innovative practice in literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 47, 36–43.
27.
KroegerK. A.SchultzJ. R.NewsomC. (2007). A comparison of two group-delivered social skills programs for young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 808–817. doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0207-x
28.
LeeY.VailC. O. (2005). Computer-based reading instruction for young children with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(1), 5–18.
29.
LinebargerD. L. (2001). Learning to read from television: The effects of using captions and narration. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 288–298. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.288
30.
LinebargerD. L.KosanicA. Z.GreenwoodC. R.DokuN. S. (2004). Effects of viewing the television program Between the Lions on the emergent literacy skills of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 197–308. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.297
31.
MayerR. E.MorenoR. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
32.
McCarthyC. B. (2005). Effects of thematic-based, hands-on science teaching versus a textbook approach for students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 245–263. doi:10.1002/tea.20057
33.
McLaughlinM. J.ThurlowM. (2003). Educational accountability and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges. Educational Policy, 17, 431–451. doi:10.1177/0895904803254962
34.
MechlingL. C. (2004). Effects of multimedia computer-based instruction on grocery shopping fluency. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(1), 23–34.
35.
MechlingL. C.LangoneJ. (2000). The effects of a computer-based instructional program with video anchors on the use of photographs for prompting augmentative communication. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 90–105.
36.
MechlingL. C.Ortega-HurndonF. (2007). Computer-based video instruction to teach young adults with moderate intellectual disabilities to perform multiple step job tasks in a generalized setting. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 24–37.
37.
MeyerM.LeeY. B. (1995). Closed-captioned prompt rates: Their influence on reading outcomes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED383324.)
38.
NikopoulosC. K.KeenahM. (2007). Using video modeling to teach complex social sequences to children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 678–693. doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0195-x
ReagonK. A.HigbeeT. S.EndicottK. (2007). Using video instruction procedures with and without embedded text to teach object labeling to preschoolers with autism: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(1), 13–21.
41.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
42.
SheaP. (2000). Leveling the playing field: A study of captioned interactive video for second language learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22, 243–263. doi:10.2190/3NEY-BNT0-FB28-VBWY
43.
SimpsonA.LangoneJ.AyresK. M. (2004). Embedded video and computer based instruction to improve social skills for students with autism. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 240–252.
44.
SlaterJ. M. (2002). A pictorial approach for improving literacy skills in students with disabilities: An exploratory research study. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(3), 58–62.
45.
Tardif-WilliamsC. Y.OwenF.FeldmanM.TarulliD.GriffithsD.SalesC. (2007). Comparison of interactive computer-based and classroom training on human rights awareness in persons with intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42, 48–58.
46.
TodmanJ.DugardP. (2001). Single-case and small-n experimental designs: A practical guide to randomization tests. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
Van LaarhovenT.Van Laarhoven-MyersT. (2006). Comparison of three video-based instructional procedures for teaching daily living skills for persons with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 365–381.
WehmeyerM. L. (2006). Universal Design for Learning, access to the general education curriculum and students with mild mental retardation. Exceptionality, 12, 225–235. doi:10.1207/s15327035ex1404_4
50.
WehmeyerM. L.SmithS. J.DaviesD. K. (2005). Technology use and students with intellectual disability: Universal design for all students. In EdyburnD. L.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 309–324). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
51.
WissickC. A.GardnerE.LangoneJ. (1999). Video-based simulations: Considerations for teaching students with developmental disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 22, 233–249. doi:10.1177/088572889902200206
52.
WissickC. A.LloydJ. W.KinzieM. B. (1992). The effects of community training using a videodisc-based simulation. Journal of Special Education Technology, 11(4), 207–222.
