Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework that is commonly used for guiding the construction and delivery of instruction intended to support all students. In this study, we used a related model to guide creation of a multimedia-based instructional tool called content acquisition podcasts (CAPs). CAPs delivered vocabulary instruction during two concurrent social studies units to 32 SWD and 109 students without disabilities. We created CAPs using a combination of evidence-based practices for vocabulary instruction, UDL, and Mayer’s instructional design principles. High school students with and without learning disabilities completed weekly curriculum-based measurement (CBM) probes (vocabulary matching) over an 8-week period along with two corresponding posttests. Students were nested within sections of world history and randomly assigned to alternating treatments (CAPs and business as usual) that were administered sequentially to each group. Results revealed that students with and without disabilities made significant growth on CBMs and scored significantly higher on the posttests when taught using CAPs.
ArcherA., L.HughesC. A. (2011). Explicit instruction—Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
2.
AtkinsD.BennettJ.BrownJ. S.ChopraA.DedeC.FishmanB.WilliamsB. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology national educational technology plan 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.
3.
AustinK. A. (2009). Multimedia learning: Cognitive individual differences and display design techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules. Computers & Education, 53, 1339–1354. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.017
4.
BashamJ. D.GardnerJ. E. (2010). Measuring Universal Design for Learning. Special Education Technology Practice, 12, 15–19.
5.
BashamJ. D.MarinoM. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 8–15.
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. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1593594
7.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
8.
ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.
9.
ClarkR. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 21–29.
10.
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. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9013-8
11.
DeLeeuwK. E.MayerR. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 223–234. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.223
12.
DeshlerD. D.ShumakerJ. B. (2006). High school students with disabilities: Strategies for accessing the curriculum. New York, NY: Corwin Press.
13.
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 & Practice, 26, 204–213.
14.
EbbersS. M.DentonC. A. (2008). A root awakening: Vocabulary instruction for older students with reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 90–102. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00267.x
15.
EdyburnD. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 33–41.
16.
EspinC. A.BuschT. W.ShinJ.KruschwitzR. (2001). Curriculum-based measurement in the content areas: Validity of vocabulary-matching as an indicator of performance in social studies. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 142–151. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.00015
17.
EspinC. A.CampbellH. M. (2012). They’re getting older…but are they getting better? The influence of curriculum-based measurement on programming for secondary-school students with learning disabilities. In EspinC. A.McMasterK. L.RoseS.WaymanM. M. (Eds.), A measure of success—The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 149–164). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
18.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.ComptonD.CoyneM.GreenwoodC.InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.
19.
GravesM. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning & instruction. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
20.
HeilesonS. B. (2010). What is the academic efficacy of podcasting?Computers & Education, 55, 1063–1068. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.002
JitendraA. K.EdwardsL. L.SacksG.JacobsonL. A. (2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70, 299–322.
23.
KauffmanJ. M.HallahanD. P. (2005). Special education: What it is and why we need it. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
24.
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.
25.
KennedyM. J.DeshlerD. D.LloydJ. W. (2013). Effects of multimedia vocabulary instruction on adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. doi:10.1177/0022219413487406
26.
KennedyM. J.DriverM. K.PullenP. C.ElyE.ColeM. T. (2013). Improving teacher candidates’ knowledge of phonological awareness: A multimedia approach. Computers & Education, 64, 42–51. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.0.1.010
27.
KennedyM. J.HartJ. E.KellemsR. O. (2011). Using enhanced podcasts to augment limited instructional time in teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 87–105. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0888406410376203
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. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/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, 7. Retrieved from http://tecplus.org/articles/article/1/0
30.
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, 26–33.
31.
King-SearsM. E. (2009). Universal design for learning: Technology and pedagogy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 199–201.
32.
KlingnerJ. K. (2004). The science of professional development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 248–255. doi:10.1177/00222194040370031001
33.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.LevinJ. R. (1987). Learning-disabled students’ memory for expository prose: Mnemonic versus non-mnemonic pictures. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 505–519.
34.
MayerR. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63, 760–769. Retrieved from http://dx.doi/10.1037/0003066X.63.8.760
MayerR. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. New York, NY: Pearson.
37.
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
38.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1991). Learning disabilities: Issues on definition. Asha, 33(Suppl. 5), 18–20.
39.
PaivioA. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
ProctorC. P.DaltonB.UccelliP.BiancarosaG.MoE.SnowC.NeugebauerS. (2011). Improving comprehension online: Effects of deep vocabulary instruction with bilingual and monolingual fifth graders. Reading and Writing, 24, 517–544. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9218-2
41.
RalabateP.DoddE.VueG.KargerJ.SmithF.CarlisleA.EidelmanH. (2012). Understanding the impact of the race to the top and ARRA funding on the promotion of universal design for learning. Wakefield, MA: National Center on UDL.
42.
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. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00261.x
43.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
SwansonH. L. (2001). Research on interventions for adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related to higher-order processing. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 331–348. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/499671
46.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC: Author.
47.
VaughnS.MartinezL. R.Linan-ThompsonS.ReutebuchC. K.CarlsonC. D.FrancisD. J. (2009). Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh-grade English language learners: Findings from two experimental studies. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 297–324. doi:10.1080/19345740903167018
48.
XinJ. F.RiethH. (2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school students with learning disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 87–103.
49.
ZigmondN. (2006). Reading and writing in co-taught secondary school social studies classrooms: A reality check. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22, 249–268. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573560500455711
