TeenACE for Science (TAS) is a writing intervention that combines components of Multimedia Technology, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) to help students develop expository writing skills in science. This developmental study examined the effect of the TAS intervention with two groups of culturally and linguistically diverse middle school students. Forty-six students in two classrooms that included general and special education students participated in a 12-week intervention during which they wrote multiple science reports. Students used the multimodal features of a productivity software (PowerPoint) to organize pictures and headings, take notes on a cognitive map, type in text, and record their voices narrating what they had written. This mixed methods study utilized pre-post tests and curriculum-based measures to examine quantitative changes. Qualitative measures included surveys and focus groups. Pre-post test results showed that students scored significantly higher on two Woodcock Johnson III subtests (Writing Fluency and Writing Samples) though no significant change was noted on the Editing subtest. Teachers rated the intervention as relevant, useful, and high quality; they reported continued use of the same protocol at a 1-year follow-up.
BryantB. R., RaoK., & OkM. W. (2014). Universal design for learning and assistive technology: Promising developments. In DaCostaB. & SeokS. (Eds.), Assistive technology research, practice, and theory (pp. 11–20). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
ConnorC. M., AlbertoP. A., ComptonD. L., & O'ConnorR. E. (2014). Improving reading outcomes for students with or at-risk for reading disabilities: A synthesis of the contributions from the Institute of Education Science Research Centers (NCSER 2014-3000). Washington, DC. National Center for Special Education Research. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov
5.
CulhamR. (2003). 6+1 Traits of writing: The complete guide.NY: Scholastic Publishing.
6.
DowrickP. W. (2009). Multimedia for literacy in English language learners with disabilities, Phase 2: Evaluation research. (Interim Report, # H327A-070023). Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
7.
DowrickP. W., & YuenJ. W. L. (2006a) Literacy for the community, by the community.Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 32, 81-96.
8.
DowrickP. W., & YuenJ. W. L. (2006b). Teenage literacy: Pilot study in Hawaii.Asia Pacific Journal of Inclusive Education, 3, 1–20.
9.
DyeJ. F., SchatzI. M., RosenbergB. A., & ColemanS. T. (2000, January). Constant comparison method: A kaleidoscope of data [24 paragraphs].The Qualitative Report [On-line serial], 4(1/2). Available: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-4/dye.html
10.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., HospM. K., & JenkinsJ. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis.Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 239-256.
11.
GillespieA. & GrahamS. (2014). A meta-analysis of writing interventions for students with learning disabilities.Exceptional Children, 80(4), 454-76
12.
GrahamS. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In MacArthurC., GrahamS., & FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). New York: Guildford.
13.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In SwansonL., HarrisK. R., & GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 383-402). New York: Guilford.
14.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. R. (2013). Common core state standards, writing, and students with LD: Recommendations.Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 28(1), 28-37.
15.
GrahamS. & PerrinD. (2006). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high school (commissioned by Carnegie Corp. of New York). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.
16.
HallT. E., MeyerA., & RoseD. H. (2012) Universal design for learning in the classroom.New York: Guilford Press.
17.
HarrisK., & GrahamS. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books
18.
Harris, K. R, GrahamS., MasonL. H., & FriedlanderB. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students.Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
19.
HebertM., GrahamS., Rigby-WillsH., & GansonK. (2014). Effects of note-taking and extended writing on expository text comprehension: Who benefits?Learning Disabilities – A Contemporary Journal, 12(1), 43–68.
20.
HitchcockC. H., & RaoK. (2013). Power assisted writing for science: Developing expository writing in a multimedia environment.Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(1), 25.
21.
HitchcockC. H., WynneM., & DowrickP. W. (2009, April). TeenACE write on! CEC 2009 Convention and Expo. Seattle, WA.
22.
KiuharaS. A., O'NeillR. E., HawkenL. S., & GrahamS. (2012). The effectiveness of teaching 10th-grade students STOP, AIMS, and DARE for planning and drafting persuasive text.Exceptional Children, 78(3), 335–355
23.
LaneK. L., HarrisK. R., GrahamS., WeisenbachJ. L., BrindleM., & MorphyP. (2008). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing performance of second-grade students with behavioral and writing difficulties.Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 234-253
24.
LienemannT. O., & ReidR. (2008). Using self-regulated strategy development to improve expository writing with students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.Exceptional Children, 74(4), 471–486.
25.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)Nation's report card: Writing (2011).
National Science Foundation (2009). Division of science resources statistics, women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2009, N.S.F. 09-305, Arlington, VA. Available from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
28.
Next Generation Science Standards (2015). Next Generation Science Standards for today's students and tomorrow's workforce.Achieve Inc., Washington, D. C. Available from http://www.nextgenscience.org/
29.
PowersA. & StansfieldC. (2009). Developing science literacy for English language learners.AccELLerate! The quarterly newsletter of the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2(1), 11-12.
30.
QuinnH., LeeO., & ValdesG. (2012). Language demands and opportunities in relation to Next Generation Science Standards for English Language Learners: What teachers need to know.Stanford University. Understanding Language: Language, Literacy, and Learning in the Content Areas, 1-12.
31.
RaoK., DowrickP., YuenJ., & BoisvertP. (2009). Writing in a multimedia environment: Pilot outcomes for high school students in special education.Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(1), 27-38.
