Online environments increasingly are becoming a part of our schools. While online education holds tremendous promise—offering viable and attractive options for advancing student skills, increasing access, and potentially lowering the cost of educational services—there is little research on the efficacy of online instruction for students with disabilities. A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted to determine if the existing literature can provide a research base for delivering evidence-based practices mediated through synchronous or asynchronous online technology for students with disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenM.BourhisJ.BurrellN.MabryE. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 83–97.
2.
BakerS.GerstenR.Dae-SikL. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73.
3.
BernardR. M.AbramiP. C.LouY.BorokhovskiE.WadeA.WozneyL. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74, 379–439.
4.
BodzinA. M.WallerP. L.SantoroL. E.KaleD. (2007). Investigating the use of inquiry and web-based activities with inclusive biology learners. American Biology Teacher, 69, 273–279.
5.
CavanaughC. S. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K–12 learning: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7, 73–88
6.
CavanaughC.GillanK. J.KromreyJ.HessM.BlomeyerR. (2004). The effects of distance education on K–12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
7.
ClarkR. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–459.
8.
ClarkR. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 21–29.
9.
DiazD.CartnalR. (1999). Students' learning styles in two classes: Online distance learning and equivalent on-campus. College Teaching, 47, 21–35.
10.
EhrmannS. C. (1995). Asking the right questions. Change, 27(2), 20–28.
11.
EnglertC.WuX.ZhaoY. (2005). Cognitive tools for writing: Scaffolding the performance of students through technology. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 184–198.
12.
EnglertC.YongZ.DunsmoreK.CollingsN.WolbersK. (2007). Scaffolding the writing of students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: Using an Internet-based technology to improve performance. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 30, 9–29.
13.
Federal Communications Commission. (2011). Connecting America: The national broadband plan. Retrieved from http://www.broadband.gov/plan/.
14.
HudsonP.Lignugaris-KraftB.MillerT. (1993). Using content enhancements to improve the performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in content classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice8, 106–126.
15.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Pub. L. No. 108–446. (2004).
16.
IzzoM. V.YurickA.NagarajaH. N.NovakJ. A. (2010). Effects of a 21st century curriculum on students' information technology and transition skills. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33, 95–105.
17.
KennedyM. J.DeshlerD. D. (2010). Literacy instruction, technology, and students with learning disabilities: Research we have, research we need. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 33, 289–29.
18.
KinashS. (2002). Online education in disability studies, and interactive interviewing online as research methodology. Paper presented at the Second City Conference on Disability Studies, Chicago, IL.
19.
KinashS. (2003). Computer literacy and online learning of blind adults. Paper presented at the International Conference, Getting in Touch with Literacy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.
20.
KinashS.CrichtonS.Kim-RupnowW. S. (2004). A review of 2000–2003 literature at the intersection of online learning and disability. The American Journal of Distance Education, 18, 5–19.
21.
KozmaR. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.
22.
MacArthurC. A. (2009). Using technology to teach composing to struggling writers. In TroiaG. A. (Ed.), Instruction and assessment for struggling writers: Evidence based practices (pp. 243–265). New York, NY: Guilford.
23.
MachtmesK.AsherJ. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of telecourses in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 14, 27–46.
MorrisonG. R. (1994). The media effects question: Unresolveable or asking the right question. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 41–44.
26.
MooreM. G.ThompsonM. M. (1997). The effects of distance learning. (Rev. Ed.). ACSDE Research Monograph # 15. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, American Center for the Study of Distance Education.
27.
RogersL.GrahamS. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879–906.
28.
RoseR.BlomeyerR. (2007). Access and equity in online classes and virtual schools. Vienna, VA: International Association for K–12 Online Learning. Retrieved from http://inacol.org/research/docs/NACOL_EquityAccess.pdf.
29.
RussellD. R. (1990). Writing across the curriculum in historical perspective: Toward a social interpretation. College English, 52(1), 52–73.
SaviC.SavenyeW.RowlandC. (2008). The effects of implementing web accessibility standards on the success of secondary adolescents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17, 387–411.
32.
ShacharM.NewmannY. (2003). Differences between traditional and distance education academic performance: A meta-analytic approach. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 1–20.
33.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
34.
SmithA. (2010). Home broadband 2010. Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project. Washington, D.C.: Author.
35.
SmithR.ClarkT.BlomeyerR. L. (2005). A synthesis of new research in K–12 online learning. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
36.
TennysonR. D. (1994). The big wrench vs. integrated approaches: The great media debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 15–28
37.
UllmerE. J. (1994). Media and learning: Are there two kinds of truth?Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 21–32.
38.
UngerleiderC.BurnsT. (2003). A systematic review of the effectiveness and efficiency of networked ICT in education: A state of the art report to the council of ministers Canada and industry Canada. Ottawa: Industry Canada.
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: Author.
41.
YongT. L.PingL.C. (2008). Engaging academically at risk primary school students in an ICT mediated after school program. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology24, 521–539.
42.
ZandbergI.LewisL. (2008). Technology-based distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2002–03 and 2004–05. (NCES 2008–008). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
