CAST created Strategic Reader, a technology-based system blending Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) in a digital learning environment to improve reading comprehension instruction. This experimental study evaluates the effectiveness of Strategic Reader using two treatment conditions for measuring progress (online vs. offline). Using both quantitative and qualitative data analysis, strong evidence is found that students using the online tool experience significant growth in comprehension scores. The difference in score growth in the online versus offline conditions is especially large for students with learning disabilities (LDs): Only in the online progress monitoring condition do LD students experience a statistically significant score increase. In addition, students with LDs report being substantially more engaged by (and with) Strategic Reader, finding many aspects of the tool differentially more helpful than their general education peers. In sum, the results provide promising paths for both curricular design and further research in the design of digital environments.
BurgstahlerS.DuclosR.TurcotteM. (2000). Preliminary findings: Faculty, teaching assistant, and student perceptions regarding accommodating students with disabilities in postsecondary environments. Seattle: DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology), University of Washington.
2.
CooterR. B. (1989). Test review: Gates-MacGinitie reading tests, third edition, levels 5/6, 7/9, and 10/12. Journal of Reading, 32, 656–658.
3.
CoyneP.GanleyP.HallT.MeoG.MurrayE.GordonD. (2006). Applying universal design for learning in the classroom. In RoseD.MeyerA. (Eds.), A practical reader in universal design for learning (pp. 1–13). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
4.
CoyneP.PishaB.DaltonB.ZephL. A.SmithN. C. (2012). Literacy by design: A universal design for learning approach for students with significant intellectual disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 162–172. doi:0741932510381651
5.
DaltonB.PishaB.EagletonM.CoyneP.DeysherS. (2002). Engaging the text: Reciprocal teaching and questioning strategies in a scaffolded digital learning environment (Final report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
6.
DaltonB.ProctorC. P.UccelliP.MoE.SnowC. E. (2011). Designing for diversity: The role of reading strategies and interactive vocabulary in a digital reading environment for fifth-grade monolingual English and bilingual students. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 68–100. doi:10.1177/1086296X10397872
7.
DrummondK.ChinenM.DuncanT. G.MillerH. R.FryerL.ZmachC.CulpK. (2011). Impact of the Thinking Reader software program on grade 6 reading vocabulary, comprehension, strategies, and motivation (NCEE 2010-4035). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_20104035.pdf
8.
ElacquaT.RapaportR.KruseB. (1996). Perceptions of classroom accommodations among college students with disabilities (ERIC Document No. ED400640). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED400640.pdf
9.
EspinC. A.FoegenA. (1996). Validity of three general outcome measures for predicting secondary students’ performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497–514.
10.
FinnJ. D. (1998). Parental engagement that makes a difference. Educational Leadership, 55(8), 20–24.
11.
FitzgeraldJ.ShanahanT. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 39–50. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3501_5
12.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.FernstromP. (1993). A conservative approach to special education Reform: Mainstreaming through transenvironmental programming and curriculum-based measurement. American Education Research Journal, 30, 149–178. doi:10.3102/00028312030001149
13.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
GrahamS.HebertM. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/WritingToRead
16.
GrahamS.PerinD. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
17.
HallT.MeyerA.RoseD. (Eds.). (2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
18.
JonesE. D.KrouseJ. P. (1988). The effectiveness of data-based instruction by student teachers in classrooms for pupils with mild handicaps. Teacher Education and Special Education, 11, 9–19. doi:10.1177/088840648801100102
19.
LenhartA.ArafehS.SmithA.MacgillA. R. (2008). Writing, technology and teens. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
20.
LyonG. R. (2003). Reading disabilities: Why do some children have difficulty learning to read? What can be done about it?Perspectives, 29(2), 17–19.
MadausJ. W.ScottS.McGuireJ. (2003). Barriers and bridges to learning as perceived by postsecondary students with learning disabilities (Tech. Rep. No. 01). Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability, University of Connecticut. Retrieved from http://www.facultyware.uconn.edu/files/Tech_report_01_Student_Focus_Groups.pdf
23.
MeyerA.RoseD. H. (1998). Learning to read in the computer age. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
24.
MeyerA.RoseD. H.GordonD. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory & practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.
25.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
26.
NystrandM. (2006). The social and historical context for writing research. In MacArthurC.GrahamS.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 11–27). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
27.
OlsonC. B. (2007). The reading/writing connection: Strategies for teaching and learning in the secondary classroom. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
28.
PalincsarA.BrownA. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
29.
PriorP. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In MacArthurC.GrahamS.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54–66). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
30.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
31.
RosenshineB.MeisterC. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479–530. doi:10.3102/00346543064004479
32.
RosethC. J.JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 223–246. doi:10.1037/00332909.134.2.223
33.
ShanahanT. (2006). Relations among oral language, reading, and writing development. In MacArthurC.GrahamS.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 171–183). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
34.
ShinnM. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
35.
SteckerP. M.FuchsL. S. (2000). Effecting superior achievement using curriculum-based measurement: The importance of individual progress monitoring. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 15, 128–134. doi:10.1207/SLDRP1503_2
36.
SteckerP. M.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurements to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819. doi:10.1002/pits.20113
37.
SwansonL. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 504–532. doi:10.1177/002221949903200605
38.
WongB. Y. L. (1991). Assessment of meta-cognitive research in learning disabilities: Theory, research, and practice. In SwansonH. L. (Ed.), Handbook on the assessment of learning disabilities (pp. 265–284). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
