BACKGROUND: In the 21st century, information technology (IT) literacy is crucial for all students, and may better prepare students with disabilities for transition to postsecondary employment or education.
OBJECTIVE: In this study, the potential of IT literacy embedded into an online transition curriculum is explored in the context of secondary special education. The curriculum aligns with Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts that are relevant to reading comprehension, writing, as well as searching for and analyzing sources of information online.
METHODS: A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design was utilized in six high schools.
RESULTS: Findings show that intervention group students improved in IT literacy; whereas, comparison group students did not make similar gains.
CONCLUSION: Implications for embedding transition services into specific courses and curricula for secondary students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are discussed.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2012). Fulfilling the promise of the Common Core State Standards. Alexandria, VA. Retrieved July 18, 2015 from: http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/commoncore/CCSSSummitReport.pdf
2.
BaroneD., & WrightT. E. (2008). Literacy instruction with digital and media technologies. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 292–302.
3.
BinkleyM., ErstadO., HermanJ., RaizenS., RipleyM., Miller-RicciM., & RumbleM. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In
GriffinP.,
McGawB., & CareE. (Eds.) Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). New York, NY: Springer.
4.
CoiroJ. (2012). Understanding dispositions toward reading on the Internet. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(7), 645–648.
5.
DrewS. V. (2012). Open up the ceiling on the Common Core State Standards: Preparing students for 21st-century literacy—now. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(4), 321–330.
6.
EzzianeZ. (2007). Information technology literacy: Implications on teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), 175–191.
7.
FerrettiR. P., MacArthurC. D., & OkoloC. M. (2001). Teaching for historical understanding in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 59–71.
8.
FitzgeraldG., KouryK., & MitchemK. (2008). Research on computer-mediated instruction for students with high incidence disabilities. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38, 201–233.
9.
GreensteinL. M. (2012). Assessing 21st century skills: A guide to evaluating mastery and authentic learning. Corwin Press.
10.
HallT. E., HughesC. A., & FilbertM. (2000). Computer assisted instruction in reading for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Education and Treatment of Children, 23(2), 173–193.
11.
HenryL. A. (2006). SEARCHing for an answer: The critical role of new literacies while reading on the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 614–627.
12.
HornL., BerktoldJ., & BobbitL. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
13.
HutchisonA., & WoodwardL. (2014). A planning cycle for integrating digital technology into literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 67(6), 455–464.
14.
IndividualsWith Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.
15.
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(2), 95–105.
16.
Kaiser Family Foundation (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds: A Kaiser Family Foundations Study. Menlo Park, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/8010.pdf
17.
LeuD. J., ForzaniE., RhoadsC., MaykelC., KennedyC., & TimbrellN. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1002/rrq.85
18.
LeuD.J.Jr., KinzerC.K., CoiroJ., & CammackD. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In
RuddellR.B. & UnrauN. (Eds.), Theoretical models and process of reading (5th ed., pp. 1568–1611).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
19.
LombardiA. R., IzzoM. V., RifenbarkG. G., MurrayA., BuckA., & JohnsonV. (2016). A preliminary psychometric analysis of a measure of information technology literacy skills. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. doi: 10.1177/2165143416682476
20.
MeansB., ToyamaY., MurphyR., & BakiM. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(030303), 1–47. Retrieved September 14, 2015, from http://www.sri.com/sites/default/files/publications/effectiveness_of_online_and_blended_learning.pdf
21.
MurrayC., GoldsteinD. E., NourseS., & EdgarE. (2000). The postsecondary school attendance and completion rates of high school graduates with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 119–127.
22.
National Collaborative on Workforce & Disability for Youth. (2014). Guideposts for Success. Retrieved July 18, 2015 from: http://www.ncwd-youth.info/sites/default/files/Guideposts-for-Success.pdf
23.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010. Common Core State Standards. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers,Washington D.C.
24.
NorthropL., & KileenE. (2013). A framework for using iPads to build early literacy skills. The Reading Teacher, 66(7), 531–537.
25.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2009). Framework for 21st Century Learning. Retrieved from June 26, 2014 from http://www.p21.org/about-us/p21-framework
26.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2015). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_Framework_Definitions_New_Logo_2015.pdf
27.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2016). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/about-us/p21-framework.
28.
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.
29.
Sarkees-WircenskiM., & WircenskiJ. L. (1994). Transition planning: Developing a career portfolio for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 17, 203–214.
30.
SnijdersT., & BoskerR. (1999), Multilevel analysis: An introduction to and advanced multilevel modeling. New York, NY: Sage Publishers.
31.
United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The Condition of Education 2015 (NCES 2015-144). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015144
32.
United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education, (2014). 36th Annual report to congress on the implementation of the individuals with disabilities education act, 2014, Washington, D.C.
33.
VasindaS., & McLeodJ. (2011). Extending readers theatre: A powerful and purposeful match with podcasting. The Reading Teacher, 64(7), 487–497.
34.
VoogtJ., ErstadO., DedeC., & MishraP. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 403–413.
35.
WesselR. D., JonesJ. A., MarkleL., & WestfallC. (2009). Retention and graduation of students with disabilities: Facilitating student success. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21, 116–125.
