Literacy Instruction, Technology, and Students with Learning Disabilities: Research We Have, Research We Need

Technology, whether assistive (AT) or instructional (IT), has played an uneven role in the field of learning disabilities since its inception more than a half century ago. In addition, technology is in a constant state of flux; hence, researchers have been challenged to conduct appropriate experimental testing of interventions before they are outdated or made irrelevant by advances in hardware and software. As schools seek to improve learning outcomes for all students using tiered instructional models such as response to intervention (RTI), practitioners need assistance in capitalizing on AT, IT, or a combination of the two, to guide and enrich literacy instruction for students with learning disabilities. This article presents a conceptual framework for multimedia instructional design grounded in theory and empirical research. The article concludes with recommendations for how to integrate multimedia literacy instruction within RTI frameworks MICHAEL J. KENNEDY, M.Ed., Center for Research on Learning, University of Kansas. DONALD D. DESHLER, Ph.D., Department of Special Education and Center for Research on Learning, University of Kansas. The gap between the level at which students with learning disabilities (LD) perform and the demands of the curriculum that they are expected to meet is ofteri wide. This is especially the case as students move into the secondary grades where curricular expectations accelerate and content demands (e.g., history, science, mathematics) are markedly different. The long-term consequences of the challenges students with LD face are underscored in data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study II, which found (a) 21% of students with LD are five or more grade levels below in reading; (b) 31% of students with LD drop out of school compared to 9.4% of nondisabled peers; and (c) only 11% of students with LD attend postsecondary instituüons (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005). Fortunately, considerable progress has been made in designing and validating interventions and instructional protocols that markedly improve academic outcomes for students with LD. Increasingly, protocols have included technology-based solutions based on the rapid development of technology tools focused on reading. Developments in technology-based supports, especially in the area of literacy instruction for students with LD, have promising implications for instruction and learning (McKenna & Proctor, 2006). Although the evidence base for using technology in the literacy instruction of students with LD is relatively small (Okolo & Bouck, 2007), curriculum designers and educators have the opportunity to integrate validated instructional practices with technology to markedly improve the Volume 33, Fall 2010 289 design and implementation of instructional' protocols and practices (Kamil, 2003). With the promise of technology to enhance literacyrelated outcomes, this article will (a) briefly review current efforts in technology to address literacy instruction for students with LD; (b) present a conceptual framework for designing multimedia instruction intended to augment literacy learning of children with LD; and (c) outline recommendations for integrating multimedia literacy instruction into a tiered instructional frameworks (e.g., response to intervention) and pose questions for future research. TECHNOLOGY AND LITERACY INSTRUCTION, WHAT WE KNOW Numerous lines of sustained research have been undertaken in the field of LD to promote the development of strong literacy and overall learning skills for students (cf. Deshler & Schumaker, 2006; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Burish, 2000; Graham & Harris, 2005; Scruggs, Mastropieri, Berkeley, & Graetz, in press). Each line of research shares a common attribute: It focuses on building capacity within children to become proficient learners (across various contextual settings) without the need for ongoing external support. Likewise, technologybased solutions, when designed from theoretically sound pedagological principles, are often, tools that schools can use to augment traditional face-to-face literacy instruction (Boone & Higgins, 2007; McKenna & Walpole, 2007; Torgesen & Barker, 1995). While sustained lines of research in the area of technology are only beginning to emerge (cf. AndersonInman, 2009), this field has the capacity to benefit from existing empirical groundwork as a launching point. Below we attempt to contextualize current technologybased literacy instruction by (a) reviewing a select number of studies that examine technology tools that promote literacy-related skill development, and (b) highlighting an existing framework for integrating technology into literacy instruction (King-Sears & Evmenova, 2007). Technology and Literacy Instruction While a review of the literature on technology-based solutions and literacy instruction garners a number of articles (e.g., Edyburn, 2003, 2006, 2007), few offer evidence of the impact of technology on literacy instruction. Nevertheless, research lines do exist. For example, Anderson-Inman and her colleagues from the National Center for Supported eText (NCSeT) have undertaken a sustained line of research in support of the concept of supported electronic text (eText). Supported eText helps students gain access to text through simple changes to font size, color, and availability of other tools that are assistive in nature. However, the intent of this innovation and research is not limited to promoting access (Anderson-Inman, 2009). This research group seeks to improve student decoding, fluency, and reading comprehension through various embedded supports such as electronic dictionaries, links to outside resources, and utilization of cognitive learning strategies (AndersonInman & Horney, 2007). Empirical data from the NCSeT group have established a record of positive outcomes among students from various age groups and content areas (see Anderson-Inman, 2009). Other examples of empirically validated uses of technology to promote literacy instruction target areas of vocabulary instruction and reading comprehension instruction. Xin and Rieth (2001) used a series of videos in part to provide vocabulary and comprehension instruction using the construct of anchored instruction (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990)! Students who were taught using the technology-based materials made significant gains in number of vocabulary words learned vs. control condition students. Likewise, Kim and her colleagues (Kim et al., 2006) used the essential principles of the Collaborative Strategic Reading program (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996) and built upon them to create a technology-based program (Computer-Assisted Collaborative Strategic Reading; CACSR). The CACSR was used during an experimental study to teach reading comprehension and other literacy skills to students with disabilities; findings from this research favored students who had exposure to the technology-based program. In these experimental studies with a focus on literacy outcomes for students with LD, researchers began with theoretically based instructional principles and introduced logical uses of technology to deliver literacy instruction. As a result, the combination of the effective practice with a technology-based solution proved to be an effective intervention. We argue that further research that follows this model is needed in the area of technology-based solutions specific to literacy instruction. Building sustained lines of research takes time and resources; yet, the research we have clearly shows that (a) technology can be useful in promoting literacy learning for students witb LD, and (b) existing evidencebased practices for literacy instruction may be of benefit to teachers and students if repacked and delivered using technology. Technology Integration Framework Regardless of the growing research, if we are to see technology integration within literacy instruction, educators need guidelines or explicit instructions for how various uses of technology fit within their existing repertoires of practice (McKenna & Proctor, 2006). An Learning Disability Quarterly 290 example of a practitioner-friendly framework for technology integration into literacy instruction is King-Sears and Evmenova's (2007) TECH framework: "Target the students' needs and the learning outcomes; Examine the technology choices, then decide what to use; Create opportunities to integrate technology with other instructional activities; and Handle the implementation, and monitor the impact on the students' learning" (p. 10). Recent research has confirmed that many practitioners working with students with LD do not use evidencebased strategies found to help raise literacy achievement (Klingner, Urbach, Golos, Brownell, & Menon, 2010). As researchers and practitioners consider technology-based solutions that are available (given limited district and school resources) for various learning scenarios, the TECH framework should be viewed as a straightforward and logical approach to individualizing instruction to meet the needs of students, while not using technology simply because it happens to be available. A limitation of this framework is the burden left to practitioners in terrns of recognizing the cognitive demands of various learning activities and sorting through available technology options to deliver efficient and effective literacy instruction. Maccini, Gagnon, and Hughes (2002) conducted a significant review of technology-based practices for secondary students with LD and noted several recommendations to the field. Two of these recommendations are as follows: (a) use technology systematically and strategically in instruction; and (b) incorporate effective instructional design principles within technology-based instruction (Kelly, Carnine, Gersten, & Grossen, 1986; Kelly, Gersten, & Carnine, 1990). We use these two key recommendations in offering a conceptual framework that seeks to bridge theory and practice with respect to technology-based solutions and effective literacy instruction for students with LD. It is our belief that practitioners need rriore explicit guidance in terms of selecting or designing technology-supported (e.g., multimedia) materials to support the literacy learning needs of students with LD. This need for explicit guidance provides the rationale for the conceptual framework presented here. ! CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK tlearly, the literacy of yesterday is not the literacy of today, arid it will not be the literacy of tomorrow. (Leu, 2000, p. 744) While the empirical base for using IT to improve literacy skills and outcomes for students with LD is still solidifying, existing data provide ample rationale to warrant future inquiries (Maccini et al., 2002; Okolo & Bouck, 2007). The purpose of this conceptual framework (see Figure 1) is to ground future research and implementation of technology-based solutions within tiered instructional models (e.g., RTI) to improve literacy skills for students with LD. The conceptual framework is organized around four major theoretical principles that individually and collectively influence design and delivery of literacy instruction for students with LD: (a) the deictic relationship between technology and literacy (Leu, 2000); (b) technological pedagological content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2005); (c) multimedia instructional design principles (Mayer, 2009); and (d) the enzymatic theory of education (Fox, 1983; Larsen, 1995). As illustrated in Figure 1, the center of the proposed conceptual framework is the proactive student-centered learning theory, the enzymatic theory of education (ETE; Fox, 1983). Our philosophy regarding the purpose of specia.1 education for students with LD is to help students remediate areas of academic struggle through individualized interventions comprised of a menu of evidence-based practices. Therefore, our graphic shows the ETE surrounded by instructional design theories and practices intended to promote active learning in specific areas of need. The Deictic Relationship Between Technology and Literacy We have entered a period of rapid and continuous change in the forms and functions of literacy. Today, changing technologies for information and communication and changing envisionments for their use rapidly and continuously redefine the nature of literacy. (Leu, 2000. pp. 744-745) The concept of deixis within the field of literacy and technology means that the overall nature and essence of literacy and technology are changing so rapidly and thoroughly that it is difficult to define and describe either, let alone both in tandem (Leu, 2000). In a sense, the seemingly obvious questions "what is literacy?" and "what is instructional technology?" (and their respective answers) have become moving targets. For researchers and practitioners seeking to understand the interrelated and dynamic relationships between literacy and technology, the deictic nature of this relationship makes experimental rigor demanded in today's research climate a complex proposition (Leu, 2000). Across the field of education, rapid and often unpredictable advances in technology are well documented. However, the concept of literacy is also an evolving construct (Leu, 2000). Hence, tying down a satisfactory definition and description of literacy is problematic (Moje, 2007). A significant line of research has been undertaken in tbe "new literacies" (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, Volume 33, Fall 2010 291 Figure 1. Conceptual framework. Deictic Nature of Literacy and Technology (Leu, 2000) Enzymatic Theory of Education (Fox, 1983) / Technology Pedagological Content Knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2005) Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer, 2009) & Leu, 2008) to learn more about the cognitive and practical differences promoted by changing constructions of what it means to be literate. Systemic problems ofdeixis. With regard to technology-based literacy interventions with limited rigorous field and experimental testing, educators may be cautious about the practices they select for classroom use. An important consideration in this respect is whether the technology-based interventions have an underlying theoretical basis. Therefore, it is critical that sustained programs of research in this area be undertaken (Anderson-Inman, 2009; Edyburn, 2007; Maccini et al., 2002; Okolo & Bouck, 2007). This research will guide practitioners attempting to provide individualized services to students with LD across tiers of instruction. With that said. Klingner et al.'s (2010) recent findings remind us that not all educators implement evidencebased practices with the fidelity necessary for success. Therefore, researchers must ensure new practices are powerful, but also usable by the intended audience. Technological Pedagological Content Knowledge (TPACK) TPACK and the deictic interplay of literacy and technology. Practitioners, teacher educators, and researchers can do little to alter the rapidly changing landscape of how technology influences literacy instruction, except trying to keep up (Leu, 2000). Therefore, as educators consider technology as a strategy to augment literacy instruction, a major consideration will be the capacity to rapidly integrate technology-based solutions into existing teaching repertoires. Educators at all levels of the profession have a long history of resisting or rejecting new interventions that are not a logical flt with their existing approaches to teaching. Technology can play arole in helping teachers structure individualized literacy instruction; however, the use of technology must be augmentative and logical in terms of its impact on the overall instructional plan (Larsen, 1995; Maccini et al., 2002). Researchers have developed an instructional design framework that seamlessly integrates technology, content, and pedagogy for design and delivery of various types of content, known as technological pedagological content knowledge, or TPACK for short (Koehler & Mishra, 2005). Koehler and Mishra describe TPACK as an extension of Shulman's (1987) classic construct of pedagological content knowledge. We see TPACK as a helpful construct for conceptualizing and organizing the role of IT for delivering literacy instruction when teaching students with LD across all tiers of an RTI model. Learning Disability Quarterly 292 TPACK and tiered instructional models (RTI). For practitioners providing services to students within an RTI fj-amework, the question of how TPACK can guide instructional design across increasingly intensive settings is a significant issue to be addressed by researchers. First, it is critical that evidence-based practices I that address literacy skills be in place across all tiers ^ of a school's instructional settings and that practitioners are armed with a menu of appropriate IT options to augment existing strategies. Second, researchers, teacher educators, and practitioners must reflect on the speciflc demands related to literacy native to the various content areas and curriculum standards. And finally, typical elements of RTI frameworks such as universal screenings and progress monitoring must guide practitioners in terms of matching the individual needs of students with evidence-based and IT-driven practices that address the demands of the various content areas and learning tasks. The TPACK framework is potentially useful for selecting and embedding technology that complements literacy instructional practices given different instructional settings and the unique learning needs of students. However, the recognition that technology should complement existing approaches to instruction, not supplant them, leaves a significant piece of the puzzle unsolved, especially for the typical educator responsible for the education of students with LD. The piece frequently overlooked or taken for granted by practitioners is the actual "looks and sounds" of specific technologybased program or intervention. In the next section we describe an important instructional design principle that tan be used to guide construction of multimedia materials. Multimedia Instructional Design Principles Educators must give thought to the impact technology has on the cognitive processes of the intended audiencei(Boone & Higgins, 2007; Mayer, 2009). This is one reasqn why researchers from all sides of the technology discussion agree that technology must not be used gratuitously during instruction (King-Sears & Evmenova, 2007i). Literacy instruction should reflect multimedia design principles that are a match for the cognitive learning needs of the intended population of learners, as much as being a logical addition to the overall plan for teaching. Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) is a learneroriented instructional theory and empirically validated design process (Mayer, 2009). The CTML is grounded in the cognitive load theory (CLT; Chandler & Sweller, 1991Í) and the dual processing theory (DPT; Paivio, 1986). The CLT holds that humans have a limited working memory; therefore, when incoming stimuli overwhelm the limited cognitive resources in working memory, new learning cannot take place (Chandler & Sweller, 1991). The DPT, in turn, reflects the belief that humans have capacity to internalize information through visual and auditory channels in working memory (Paivio, 1986). The combination of these two theories and associated research findings underwrite Mayer's CTML and its three, assumptions about human cognition. The three assumptions of the CTML are as follows: (a) Humans possess two separate channels for processing visual and auditory information; (b) Humans are limited in the amount of information that they can process in each channel at one time; and (c) Humans engage in active learning by attending to relevant incoming information, organizing selected information into coherent mental representations, and integrating mental representations with other knowledge. (Mayer, 2009, p. 63) A key component of the CTML is an understanding that learners' cognitive capacity is influenced by three kinds of cognitive load during learning, termed the triarchic model of cognitive load (DeLeeuw & Mayer, 2008). When designing instructional materials to address Mayer's three assumptions, it is necessary to use research-based design principles that address each speciflc element of the triarchic model of cognitive load by (a) limiting extraneous processing, (b) managing essential processing, and (c) fostering generative processing (Mayer, 2009). Grounded in CLT and DPT, Mayer has outlined 10 interdependent, research-validated design principles that, when brought together, constitute a "construction checklist" for designing instructional materials that are effective for fostering learning (see Mayer, 2009). The steps and a brief description are listed in Table 1. The CTML and literacy learning of students with LD. Students with LD need instruction that actively reflects on and addresses limitations with respect to processing speed, working memory, and overall reading performance Johnson, Humphrey, Mellard, Woods, & Swanson, 2010; Swanson, 2001). The core of any literacy instruction should include evidence-based practices (EBPs); therefore, embedding EBPs within a TPACK framework for multimedia instruction is a logical design strategy (Harris, Mishra, & Köhler, 2009). However, simply using TPACK does not necessarily address Mayer's assumptions of how humans utilize limited cognitive resources to process information, and thereby meet the individualized cognitive needs of students with LD. In reality, many uses of technology to deliver or augment literacy instruction can be distracting, disruptive. Volume 33, Fall 2010 293