Most general education content area teachers teach classes that include students with disabilities. However, this can be a daily challenge, as most teachers in this group receive limited support for meeting the unique needs of those students in their respective disciplines. One tool used by many to help support learning for all students is multimedia-based instruction; however, the quality of available multimedia can be hit or miss, it can be difficult to find, and it is often a mismatch for student learning needs. In this study, an innovative multimedia-based intervention, Content Acquisition Podcasts (CAPs) are introduced and described in the context of teacher candidate capacity to create a sample video. CAPs contain a combination of evidence-based instructional design principles and practices for learning vocabulary terms and concepts. Forty master's degree students were taught to create CAPs, which were evaluated for adherence to established design principles and evidence-based instructional practices. Participants completed a satisfaction survey and participated in a focus group regarding their experience. Implications for practitioners and teacher educators are included and discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArcherA. L.HughesC. A. (2011). Explicit instruction—Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford.
2.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. C.KucanL. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford.
3.
BondyE.BrownellM. T. (2004). Getting beyond the research to practice gap: Researching against the grain. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 47–56. doi: 10.1177/088840640402700105
4.
BrownellM. T.GriffinC. G.LekoM. M.StephensJ. (2011). Improving collaborative teacher education research: Creating tighter linkages. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 235–249.
5.
BrownellM. T.BishopA. G.KlingnerJ. K.PenfieldR. D.DiminoJ.HaagerD.… SindelarP. T. (2009). The role of domain expertise in beginning special education teacher quality. Exceptional Children, 75, 391–411.
6.
BryantD. P.GoodwinM.BryantB. R.HigginsK. (2003). Vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review of the research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 117–128.
7.
CarlsonE.BrauenM.KleinS.SchrollK.WilligS. (2002). Study of personnel needs in special education: Key findings. Rockville, MD: Westat.
8.
ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.
9.
ClarkR. E. (2009). Translating research into new instructional technologies for higher education: The active ingredient process. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 4–18. doi: 10.1007/s12528-009-9013-8
10.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19, 1–10.
11.
CondermanG.Johnston-RodriguezS. (2009). Beginning Teachers' Views of Their Collaborative Roles. Preventing School Failure, 53 (4), 235–244.
12.
CookB. G.OdomS. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79, 135–146.
13.
CortiellaC. (2011). The state of learning disabilities. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
14.
DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B. (2006). High school students with disabilities: Strategies for accessing the curriculum. New York, NY: Corwin Press.
15.
DexterD. D.ParkY. J.HughesC. A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of graphic organizers and science instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities: Implications for the intermediate and secondary science classroom. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26, 204–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00341.x.
16.
EbbersS. M.DentonC. A. (2008). A root awakening: Vocabulary instruction for older students with reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 90–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00267.x.
17.
EdmondsM. S.VaughnS.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC.CableA.TackettK.SchnakenbergJ. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, 262–300.
18.
EdyburnD. (2013). Critical issues in advancing the special education technology evidence base. Exceptional Children, 80, 7–24.
19.
FowlerF. J. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
20.
GravesM. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning & instruction. New York, NY: Teacher's College Press.
21.
HarmonJ. M.HedrickW. B.WoodK. D. (2005). Research on vocabulary instruction in the content areas: Implications for struggling readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 261–280. doi: 10.1080/10573560590949377
22.
HarnB.ParisiD.StoolmillerM. (2013). Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: What do we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools?Exceptional Children, 79, 181–194.
23.
JitendraA. K.EdwardsL. L.SacksG.JacobsonL. A. (2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70, 299–322.
24.
KellyD.XieH.NordC. W.JenkinsF.ChanJ. Y.KastbergD. (2013). Performance of U.S. 15-year-old-students in mathematics, science, and reading literacy in an international context: First look at PISA 2012 (NCES 2014-024). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
25.
KennedyM. J. (2013). Multimedia instruction: The runaway train that spontaneously changes direction and speed. DLD New Times, 31(3), 1–3.
26.
KennedyM. J.DeshlerD. D. (2010). Literacy instruction, technology, and students with learning disabilities: Research we have, research we need. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 289–298.
27.
KennedyM. J.DeshlerD. D.LloydJ. W. (2013). Effects of multimedia vocabulary instruction on adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0022219413487406
28.
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, 44–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00349.x
29.
KennedyM. J.LloydJ. W.ColeM.ElyE. (2012). Specially designed vocabulary instruction in the content areas: What does high quality instruction look like?Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(1), 7. Retrieved from http://tecplus.org/article/1.
30.
KennedyM. J.ThomasC. N.AroninS.NewtonJ. R.LloydJ. W. (2014). Improving teacher candidate knowledge using content acquisition podcasts. Computers & Education. 70, 116–127. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.010
31.
KennedyM. J.ThomasC. N.MeyerJ. P.AlvesK. D.LloydJ. W. (2014). Using evidence-based multimedia to improve vocabulary performance of adolescents with LD. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37, 71–86. doi: 10.1177/0731948713507262
32.
KennedyM. J.WexlerJ. (2013). Helping students succeed within secondary-level STEM content—Using the “T” in STEM to improve literacy skills. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 26–33.
33.
KlingnerJ. K.BoardmanA. G.McMasterK. L. (2013). What does it take to scale up and sustain evidence-based practices?Exceptional Children, 79, 195–212.
34.
LenzB. K.HughesC. A. (1990). A word identification strategy for adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 149–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221949002300304.
35.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.GraetzJ. E.NordlandJ.GardiziW.McDuffieK. (2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 260–270.
36.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.LevinJ. R. (1987). Learning-disabled students' memory for expository prose: Mnemonic versus nonmnemonic pictures. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 505–519.
37.
MayerR. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63, 760–769. doi:10.1037/0003066X.63.8.760
38.
MayerR. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39.
MayerR. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. New York, NY: Pearson.
40.
MayerR. E.JohnsonC. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 380–386. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.380
41.
MayerR. E.MorenoR. (1998). A cognitive theory of multimedia learning: Implications for design principles. In NaryananN. H. (Ed.). Electronic proceedings of the CHI'98 workshop on hypedmedia to hyper-media: Toward theoretical foundations of design, use and evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.usc-dr-edens.org/uploads/7/2/5/3/7253252/mayer_and_moreno.pdf.
42.
McKenzieR. G. (2009). Elevating instruction for secondary-school students with learning disabilities by demystifying the highly qualified subject matter requirement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 143–150. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00288. x
43.
ReedD. K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in grades K–12. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 36–49. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00261.x
44.
SanfordC.NewmanL.WagnerM.CametoR.KnokeyA.-M.ShaverD. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 6 years after high school. Key findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011-3004). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
45.
ScammaccaN.RobertsG.VaughnS.EdmondsM.WexlerJ.RuetebuchC. K.TorgesenJ. K. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth, NH: Center on Instruction, RMC Research Corporation,
46.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.McDuffieM. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416.
47.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.BerkeleyS.GraetzJ. E. (2010). Do special education interventions improve learning of secondary content?Remedial and Special Education. 31, 437–449. doi:10.1177/0741932508327465
48.
van GarderenD.ThomasC. N.StormontM.LembkeE. S. (2012). An overview of principles for special educators to guide mathematics instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48, 131–141. doi: 10.1177/1053451212454006
49.
VaughnS.SchummS.SinagubJ. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.
XinJ. F.RiethH. (2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school students with learning disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 87–103.
