Curriculum Curb-Cuts Pathfinder - Recently Updated Pages

Lexicon

belinapasula — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:21:05 CDT

Coming at a later date. (I need to read and reflect more first.)

Literacy Online Artifacts

belinapasula — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:41:49 CDT

Journal of Literacy and Technology: An International Online Academic Journal
http://www.literacyandtechnology.org/

Speaking Literacy and Learning to Technology, Speaking Technology to Literacy and Learning (Palincsar.pdf)
Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar and Bridget Dalton, 2004
National Reading Conference (NRC) Research Address

Adolescent Literacy Facebook Group
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Adolescent-Literacy/179757666129

Inkspell (http://educationforperichoresis.blogspot.com/)
A blog for secondary educators looking for ways to inspire deeper elements of literacy in their students.

Literacy Key Experts

belinapasula — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:40:47 CDT

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Literacy

belinapasula — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:37:30 CDT

"Literacy is a complex set of abilities needed to understand and use the dominant symbol systems of a culture – alphabets, numbers, visual icons - for personal and community development. The nature of these abilities, and the demand for them, vary from one context to another.

In a technological society, literacy extends beyond the functional skills of reading, writing, speaking and listening to include multiple literacies such as visual, media and information literacy. These new literacies focus on an individual’s capacity to use and make critical judgements about the information they encounter on a daily basis.

However a culture defines it, literacy touches every aspect of individual and community life. It is an essential foundation for learning through life, and must be valued as a human right."

(Retrieved August 4th, 2010 from http://www.centreforliteracy.qc.ca/def.htm)__________________________________
Movement for Canadian Literacy (MCL), the national coalition advancing literacy and essential skills across Canada, has adopted the definition of literacy put forward by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO):
Literacy is: “the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, compute and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning to enable an individual to achieve his or her goals, to develop his or her knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in the wider society.”
(Retrieved August 4th, 2010 and adapted from http://www.literacy.ca/)

Literacy Literature

belinapasula — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:59:31 CDT

Books

2008
Grisham, D. & DeVere Wolsey, T. (2008). The role of technology in supporting struggling readers. In S. Lenski & J. Lewis (Eds.). Reading success for struggling adolescent learners (93-115). New York: Guildford Press.

2004
Duke, N.K., & Mallette, M.H. (Eds.) (2004). Literacy research methodologies. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1270-1328). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Leu, D., Kinzer, C., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet and other communication technologies. In R. Ruddell and N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and process of reading (5th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Mahiri, J. (Ed.). (2004).What they don’t learn in school: Literacy in the lives of urban youth. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

Sadoski, M. & Paivio, A. (2004). A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In R.B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1329-1362). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

2003
Collins Black, C. (2003). Literacy difficulties: Diagnosis and instruction for reading specialists and classroom teachers (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Collins, J., & Blot, R.K. (2003). Literacy and literacies: Texts, power, and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Kamil, M. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Wasington, DC: Alliance for the Excellence of Education.

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

2002
Allington, R. (2002). Research on reading/learning disability intervention. In A.E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd Ed., pp. 261-290). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Samuels, S.J. (2002). Reading fluency: Its development and assessment. In A.E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.). What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 166-183). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

2000
Lue, D. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 743-770). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

1998
Alvermann, D.E., Hinchman, K.A., Moore, D. W., Phelps, S.F, & Waff, D.R. (Eds.). Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kamil, M. & Lane, D. (1998). Researching the relationship between technology and literacy: An agenda for the 21st century. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 323-341). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

1996
Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis.

1995
Graff, H. (1995). The labyrinths of literacy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

1993
Dymock, S. (1993). Reading but not understanding. Journal of Reading, 37(2), 86-91.

1991
Gee, J. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.). Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other. New York: Bergiin & Garvey.

1987
Freire, P. & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Massachusetts: Bergin and Garvey.

Lankshear, C., & Lawler, M. (1987). Literacy, schooling, and revolution. London, UK: The Falmer Press.

1984
Anderson, R.C., & Pearson, P.D. 91984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.). Handbook of reading research (255-292). New York: Longman.

1968
Goody, J. Watt, I. (1968). The consequences of literacy. In J. Goody (Ed.), Literacy in traditional societies (pp. 27-68). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.

1967
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

1957
Betts, E.A. (1957). Foundations of reading instruction. New York, NY: American Book Company.

1937
Gates, A.I. (1937). The improvement of reading: A program of diagnostic and remedial methods (Rev. Ed.). New York, NY: The MacMillan Company.

Monroe, M. (1937). Remedial reading. Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press.

Articles

2006
Hughes-Hassell, S., & Lutz, C. (2006). What Do You Want to Tell Us About Reading? Young Adult Library Services, Winter: 39-45

2005
Mathes, P.G., Denton, C.A., Fletcher, J.M., Anthony, J.L., Francis, D.J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148-182.

Steinkuehler, C., Black, R., & Clinton, K. (2005). Researching literacy as tool, place, and way of being. Reading Research Quarterly, 40 (1), 7-12.

2004
Ghelani, K., Sidhu, R., Jain, U., & Tannock, R. (2004). Reading comprehension and reading related abilities in adolescents with reading disabilities and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Dyslexia, 10, 364-384.

Lomax, R.G. (2004). Whither the future of quantitative literacy research? Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 107-112.

Moje, E., Ciechanowski, K., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70.

2003
Denton, C.A., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J.M. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 201-211.

Hull, G. (2003). Youth culture and digital media: New literacies for new times. Research in the Teaching of English, 38(2), 229-233.

Mackey, M. (2003). Researching new forms of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(3), 403-407.

Street, B. (2003). What’s "new" in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current issues in comparative education, 5(2), 1-14.

2001
Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M.G. (1991). Research directions: Social studies texts are hard to understand: Mediating some of the difficulties. Language Arts, 68(6), 482-490.

Fawcett, A.J., Nicolson, R.I., Moss, H., Nicolson, M.K., & Reason, R. (2001). Effectiveness of reading intervention in junior school. Educational Psychology, 21(3), 300-312.

Gee, J.P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44(8).

MacArthur, C., Ferretti, R., Okolo, C., & Cavalier, A. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. The Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 273-301.

2000
Bogdan, D., Cunningham, E.J., & Davis, H.E. (2000). Reintegrating sensibility: Situated knowledges and embodied readers. New literary history: Philosophical and Rhetorical Inquiries, 31(3), 477-507.

Cunningham, J.W., Many, J.E., Carver, R.P., & Gunderson, L., & Mosenthal, P.B. (2000). How will literacy be defined in the new millennium? Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1), 64-71.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2000). Mapping postmodern literacies: A preliminary chart. The Journal of Literacy and Technology, Retrieved from, http://www.literacyandtechnology.org/v1n1/1k.html.

Leu, Jr., D.J., & Kinzer, C.K. (2000). The convergence of literacy instruction with networked technologies for information and communication. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1), 108–127

Willis, A., & Harris, V.J. (2000). Political acts: Literacy learning and teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1), 72–88.

1999
Borkowski, J.G. (1999). Finding the right balance for research on reading instruction. Issues in Education, 5(1), 55-58.

Guzetti, B., Anders, P.L., & Neuman, S. (1999). Thirty years of JRB/JLR: A retrospective of reading/literacy research. Journal of Literacy Research, Retrieved August 3, 2005 from, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3785/is_199903/ai_n8834969/print.

Labbo, L., & Reinking, D. (1999). Theory and research into practice: Negotiating the multiple realities of technology in research and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 478-492.

McKenna, M., Reinking, D., Labbo, L., & Kieffer, R. (1999). The electronic transformation of literacy and its implications for the struggling reader. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15, 111-126.

1998
Flood, J. & Lapp, D. (1998). Broadening conceptions of literacy: The visual and communicative arts (Visual Literacy).

1995
MacArthur, C. & Haynes, J. (1995). The Student Assistant for Learning from Text (SALT): A hypermedia reading aide. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3, 150-159.

1991
Fieldman, S. & Fish, M. (1991). The use of computer-mediated reading supports to enhance reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7 (1), 25-36.

1987
Chall, J. (1987). Learning to read: The great debate 20 years later – A response to ‘debunking the great phonics myth’. Phi Delta Kappan, March 1989, 521-538

1986
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360- 407.

1984
Scribner, S. (1984). Literacy in three metaphors. American Journal of Education, 93(1), 6-21.

Wixson, K., & Peters, C. (1984). Reading redefined: A Michigan Reading Association position paper. Michigan Reading Journal, 17, 4-7.

E-text Online Artifacts

belinapasula — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:51:36 CDT

Supported eText Bookmarks at Delicious.com

Delicious.com is a collborative bookmarking site that allows collections of Web sites to be tagged, searched, and shared. At Delicious.comNCSeT has created a collaborative, searchable, annotated database of Web sites containing examples of books, documents, and collections of digital text that have been supported by one or more type of resource. Entries are tagged on the following dimensions: (a) content area, (b) grade level, (c) type of digital text (e.g. book, collection etc.), (d) student population, and (e) type of supportive resource (with the 11 types of resources referred to in Anderson-Inman & Horney, 2007).

You may access this online database of supported etext Web sites by going to http://delicious.com/Supported_etext
This allows you to browse, search (using the tags at the right margin), and follow the links to any Web site listed.

You may also contribute to this collection of websites. Username for our collection of bookmarks on supported etext is: “supported_etext” and the password is “etext.” If you log in with this name and password you can add to our collection of bookmarked websites with supported etext. You may create your own collections of bookmarked and tagged websites by registering for a delicious.com account, available at http://delicious.com.

More than words: Text-to-speech technology as a matter of self-efficacy, self-advocacy, and choice
by Parr, Michelann, Ph.D., McGill University (Canada), 2008, 274 pages; AAT NR48038

Abstract
Preview (410 K)
Full Text - PDF (5 MB)

The National Center for Supported Electronic Text

The National Center for Supported eText (NCSeT) is a federally funded research center investigating the impact of "supported electronic text" (or supported etext) on students' reading comprehension of content area material. Current funding for NCSeT is through a five-year cooperative agreement with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in the U.S. Department of Education. NCSeT is directed collaboratively by Dr. Lynne Anderson-Inman at the University of Oregon and Dr. Judith Zorfass at Education Development Center (EDC) in Newton, MA. NCSeT supports a community of research teams across the country. In addition to teams at EDC and the University of Oregon, NCSeT sponsors supported etext research at Michigan State University, University of Georgia, University of Kentucky, Ohio State University, Fordham University, and Collier County School District, FL.

Retrieved from http://ncset.uoregon.edu/

National Center for the Study of Supported e-Text

The National Center Supported e-Text in Electronic Environments, in collaboration with research teams across the country, is conducting a systematic program of research over five years to investigate the following four research questions: (1) What characteristics of supported electronic text (e-text) facilitate or impede access to and learning of academic content for students with a range of disabilities? (2) Does supported e-text improve learning of academic content in actual educational settings with typical resources and levels of teacher support? (3) What student characteristics influence the effectiveness of supported e-text? (4) What contextual factors influence the effectiveness of supported e-text?EDC, a major partner to the lead organization, the University of Oregon, is focusing its research on improving literacy in the middle grades with students who have language and cognitive disabilities.

EDC Project Director:Judith Zorfass
Duration:2005–2010

Retrieved fromhttp://www.edc.org/projects/national_center_study_supported_e-text_nset

E-text Key Experts

belinapasula — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:51:07 CDT

Lynne Anderson-Inman (University of Oregon)

Dr. Anderson-Inman has a Ph.D. in special education, with an emphasis on content-area reading, writing, and studying. She is Director of the Center for Advanced Technology in Education (CATE) and the Center for Electronic Studying, both in the College of Education at the University of Oregon. Dr. Anderson-Inman is an internationally recognized expert on the use of technology to improve reading, writing and studying, with special emphasis on strategies for using technology to enhance the academic success of struggling learners at the secondary level. She pioneered the concept of "computer-supported studying," conducting research and developing materials on strategies designed to promote effective learning through the use of computers as study tools.

She has served as principal investigator on more than 20 federally funded projects, investigating interventions such as (1) computer-based study strategies for diverse learners, (2) digital books with "supported text," (3) networked note taking for ESL students, and (4) large scale Web-based environments for promoting authentic historical inquiry. Indicative of her research credibility and conceptual leadership, Dr. Anderson-Inman was recently awarded a five-year $3,000,000 contract by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs to launch a national research center investigating the impact of “supported text” on the reading achievement of secondary students with disabilities.

(Retrieved from http://www.nationaltechcenter.org/conferences/2005/bios/Anderson-Inman.htm)

Two interesting research projects Anderson-Inman is currently involved in are:

project SOAR: Strategies for Online Academic Reading
project ESTRELLAS: Electronic Supported Text Research for English Language Learner Academic Success

Project SOAR is a two-year Phase 1 development and evaluation effort, funded under the Steppingstones of Technology Innovation for Children with Disabilities program. Project SOAR is a collaborative effort by the Center for Advanced Technology in Education at the University of Oregon (directed by Dr. Lynne Anderson-Inman), the New Literacies Research Lab at the University of Connecticut (directed by Dr. Donald Leu), and partnering school districts. The goal of Project SOAR is to develop and evaluate technology-based reading and learning strategies designed to improve online reading and studying by secondary students with learning disabilities. Project SOAR will also develop and evaluate instructional materials and video-based, interactive, online learning modules designed to teach the strategies for online reading and studying to students with learning disabilities in middle and high schools.
Project SOAR is designed to accomplish the following seven objectives:
1. Develop, test, and refine strategies for online academic reading designed to teach students with learning disabilities to use etext supports embedded in online textbooks;
2. Develop, test, and refine strategies for online academic reading that teach students with learning disabilities to find, read, evaluate, synthesize, and share information on the Internet
3. Determine the ways in which, and the conditions under which, strategies for online academic reading promote engagement with expository and narrative texts online
4. Determine the ways in which, and the conditions under which, strategies for online academic reading enable students to complete classroom assignments that require finding, reading, evaluating, synthesizing, and sharing information on the Internet
5. Identify the factors that affect students with learning disabilities' use of strategies for online academic reading and learning and whether these factors facilitate or inhibit student ability to benefit from this technology-based instructional approach
6. Explore ways to combine and customize pairs and constellations of strategies for online academic reading and learning to meet the diverse learning needs and literacy skills of students with learning disabilities
7. Develop, test, and refine teacher and student instructional materials and video-based online interactive modules designed to support the adoption

Key people:
Dr. Lynne Anderson-Inman, PI and Director Dr. Carolyn Knox, Co-PI and Co-Director Mindy Frisbee, Materials Developer

Collaborators/partners:
Dr. Donald Leu, PI of the New Literacies Research Lab, University of Connecticut

Project Advisors:
Dr. Margo Izzo, Ohio State University Dr. John Tenny, Willamette University Mary Ditson, South Eugene High School

Partner School Districts:
Eugene School District, Eugene OR & Springfield School District, Springfield, OR Monroe School District, Monroe, CT

Project ESTRELLAS is a three-year design-based research project to develop and test three types of eText supports for improving text comprehension and content learning of ELL adolescents struggling to read traditional content-area texts in Science and Social Studies. Students participating in the ESTRELLAS Project are Spanish-speaking middle school students (Grades 6-8) who have been identified as English Language Learners (ELLs).

The long term goal of Project ESTRELLAS is to develop and test an Electronic Reading System designed to improve reading competence and content-area learning of Spanish speaking adolescent English Language Learners (ELL) through supported versions of electronic reading materials. The ESTRELLAS Electronic Reading System for Expository Text will provide ELL readers with a customizable selection of three types of eText supports: Structural Supports, Content-Specific Supports, and Strategic Supports. Each will be tested to determine the best ways to provide that type of support to students reading the text materials assigned as part of the curriculum. The supports to be developed and tested in Project ESTRELLAS derive from the typology of eText supports developed by the National Center for Supported Electronic Text (NCSeT) at the University of Oregon.

Key outcome measures include: indicators of software useability based on screen capture and computer log files; teacher and student descriptions of factors that facilitated/inhibited use of the materials in the classroom; student performance on tests of vocabulary, comprehension, and content knowledge; surveys of teacher and student satisfaction, read alouds and observations of student engagement with the materials.

Key people:
Dr. Lynne Anderson-Inman, Director; Dr. Carolyn Knox, Field Coordinator; Dr. Mark Horney, Research Coordinator; Dr. Fatima Terrazas-Arellanes, Research Associate; Mindy Frisbee, Materials Developer ;Judith Blair, Web and Communications; Dr. Edward Olivos, ELL Expert

Collaborators/partners:
Advisory Board: Dr. Eugene Garcia, Dr. Robert Jimenez, Dr. Michael Kamil, Dr. Keiko Koda, Frank Hernandez
Partnering Schools: Agnes Stuart Middle School, Springfield, OR & Hamlin Middle School, Springfield, OR

Dr. Judith Zorfass (EDC)

Judy Zorfass is Senior Director of Strategic Planning and Associate Center Director in EDC's Center for Family, School, and Community. She serves as principal investigator for the Annenberg-funded Literacy Matters website, developing e-learning event. As principal investigator for the OSEP-funded project, LINK-US (Linking Urban Schools with Information and Support), she oversees the design, conduct, and evaluation of technical assistance and professional development online and offline. As principal investigator on the National Center to Improve Practice (NCIP), she led the development of the NCIP website and oversaw development of online learning events.

Dr. Zorfass has extensive experience in middle-grades literacy development. As director of the OSEP-funded The Middle Grades Technology Integration Project and later the Make It Happen! Impact Study, she produced curriculum materials (Make It Happen!), software (Search Organizer), and the book, Teaching Middle School Students to be Active Researchers, published in 1998 by ASCD.
Dr. Zorfass received her doctorate in reading and language development from Harvard's Graduate School of Education.

(Retrieved from http://www.literacymatters.org/about/jzorfass.htm)

Assistive Technology for Learning

belinapasula — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:28:14 CDT

Assistive Technology for Learning (ATL) is the devices, media and services used in learning environments to overcome barriers for students with physical, sensory, cognitive, speech, learning or behavioural special needs to actively engage in learning and to achieve their individual learning goals.

Like other technologies, ATL ranges from simple tools to complex systems. It could be as simple as providing a pencil grip for writing or as complex as a computer with screen reading software for reading and learning. ATL Media and Devices can be categorized as to the area of need for individual students. These categories include but are not exclusive to:

	Reading	Vision
	Writing	Hearing
	Math	Organization
	Communication	Memory

Alberta ATL Resources

Digital Textbook Repository
Launched in February 2008, this new repository will allow some students with special education needs to access textbooks in digital format.
More information (982 KB)

Digital Formats of Authorized English Language Arts Novels
A number of the novels authorized to support the Grades 4 to 12 English Language Arts program of studies are available in digital formats. These digital formats can be read from a computer or, in some cases, a portable digital assistant (PDA).
Download Digital Formats of Authorized English Language Arts Novels (118 KB)

Infusing Assistive Technology into the IPP Process
Chapter 9 in Individual Program Planning (IPP) (2006) will help Learning Teams effectively make decisions about and use ATL with students who have special education needs. The chapter also offers illustrated examples, a listing of website resources and tools to support the IPP process.

Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/admin/technology/atl.aspx.

Educational Technology Pathfinder Home

belinapasula — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:26:57 CDT

"The Beauty of the Mountain is hidden for all those who try to discover it from the top, supposing that, one way or an other, one can reach this place directly. The Beauty of the Mountain reveals only to those who climbed it..." Antoine de Saint-Exupery

This pathfinder is the beginning of my climb in search of the 'beauty' of the mountain as I continue on my life-long learning journey through the University of Calgary's Doctor of Education program. It will be an evolving collection of resources that will assist in the writing of my doctoral research proposal and dissertation. Although this site is primarily for me to keep track of resources that will be helpful as I move forward in my Educational Technology doctoral studies, I hope it will also be useful to other people who are interested in accessible curriculum. In particular, assistive technology specialists, reading disability experts, and fellow academics researching supportive eText may find this digital archive a helpful online gateway to resources that will support their work. I also hope this pathfinder may help support my work as a consultant in Programs, Special Education for my school board, as well as, support the work of my colleagues such as Programming for Student Differences consultants and Assistive Technology for Learning consultants.

My research interests lie in curriculum curb-cuts; how to best leverage digital technologies to remove or reduce barriers to learning that many students face due to an over-reliance on traditional print-based resources. At this point in time my work is guided by the following question:

What is the potential of leveraging current digital technology, such as e-text, to assist junior high students with reading difficulty in acquiring more equitable access to the curriculum by supporting comprehension and extending meaningful learning through embedded supports?

I look forward to delving deep into supportive eText and then investigating its impact on students' perceptions of themselves as readers, attitudes towards reading, and reading comprehension of content area material as my doctoral research. My journey will begin at the base of the mountain with Universal Design for Learning. Next, I will go into the thick of the forest to explore Assistive Technology for Learning. Lastly, I will attempt to see the trees for the forest by looking into Supported E-text. All of this will be situated in the context of what literacy means in the 21st Century.

(http://www.wordle.net/)

If your research interest is also about the impact of supported eText, you will be excited to read the National Center for Supported eText (NCSeT), under the direction of Dr. Lynne Anderson-Inman at the University of Oregon has announced a Call for Proposals to support dissertation research investigating the impact of “supported electronic text” on middle or high school students’ comprehension of content area reading materials. “Supported electronic text” (or “supported etext”) is digital text that has been enhanced in ways that are designed to improve reading comprehension and increase learning. The purpose of the NCSeT Dissertation Research Grant Program is to support doctoral students as they engage in rigorously designed research that impacts the understanding of how students learn from digital text that has been enhanced to improve comprehension or extend learning. The grant program will also connect awardees with a national community of researchers with similar research interests and resources in ways that will enhance the quality and value of the dissertation research. NCSeT dissertation research grants will range from $2,000 to $10,000. (Retrieved from http://ncset.uoregon.edu/index.php/research-opportunities-mainmenu-138)

E-text Literature

belinapasula — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:15:10 CDT

Books

Ayres, K., Langone, J. & Douglas, K. (2009) Technology, UDL & Literacy Activities for People with Developmental Delays. In R. Subramaniam (Ed.), Handbook of Research on New Media Literacy at the K-12 Level: Issues and Challenges, (pp. 14-31).

Auld, P., & Spagnolo, M. (2006). Text-to-speech project: A multi-jurisdictional research project. In Advancing accessibility through technology institute: Puting the pieces together. Edmonton, Alberta: Educational Technology Council.

Cavanaugh, T. (2007). The digital book: Using e-books in K-12 education. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Coiro, L., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (2008). Handbook of research on new literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dalton, B., & Strangman, N. (2006). Improving struggling readers' comprehension through scaffolded hypertexts and other computer-based literacy programs. In M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer & D. Reinking (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology, vol II (pp. 75-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stahl, S. (2007). Accessible Textbooks in the Classroom: An Educator's Guide to the Acquisition of Alternate Format Core Learning Materials for Pre-K–12 Students with Print Disabilities,. In NIMAS Development and Technical Assistance Centers. Wakefield, MA.

Strangman, N. (2005). Using technology to support struggling readers: A review of the research. In D. Edyburn (ed.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice, (pp. 549-569). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

Articles

2009

Anderson-Inman, L. (2009) Thinking between the lines: literacy and learning in a connected world. On the Horizon, Vol. 17 Iss: 2, pp.122 - 141

Anderson-Inman, L. (2009). Supported eText: Literacy scaffolding for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology,24(3), 1–7.

Anderson-Inman, L., Terrazas-Arellanes, F. E., & Slabin, U. (2009). Supported eText in CaptionedVideos: A comparison of expanded versus standard captions on student comprehension of educational content.Journal of Special Education Technology,24(3), 21-34

Douglas, K. H., Ayres, K. M., Langone, J., Bell, V. & Meade, C. (2009). Expanding Literacy for Learners with Intellectual Disabilities: The role of supported eText.Journal of Special Education Technology,24(3), 35–44.

Horney, M. A., Anderson-Inman, L., Terrazas-Arellanes, F., Schulte, W., Mundorf, J., Wiseman, S. Smolkowski, K., Katz-Buonincontro, J. & Frisbee, M. (2009). Exploring the Effects of Digital Note Taking on Student Comprehension of Science Texts.Journal of Special Education Technology,24(3), 45–61.

Izzo, M. V., Yurick, A. & McArrell. (2009). Supported eText: Effects of text-to-speech on access and achievement for high school students with disabilities.Journal of Special Education Technology,24(3), 9–20.

2008

Manset-Williamson, G., Dunn, M., Hinshaw, R. & Nelson, J. (2008). The impact of self-questioning strategy use on the text-reader assisted comprehension of students with reading disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 23(1), 4-

2007

Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. (2007). Supported eText: Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 153–160.

Boon, R. T., Fore III, C., Blankenship, T., Chalk, J. (2007). Technology-based practices in social studies instruction for students with high-incidence disabilities: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(4), 41–56.

Edyburn, D.L. (2007). Technology enhanced reading performance: Defining a research agenda. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 146-152.

Elkind, K., & Elkind, J. (2007). Text-to-speech software for reading. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, Summer, 11–16.

Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., & Tindal, G. (2007). Embedded technology: Current and future practices for increasing accessibility for all students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(4), 1–15.

Okolo, C. M. (2007). Digital Books in the content-area classroom. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(4), 58–61.

Zorfass, J., Fideler, E. F., & Brann, A. (2007). Enhancing content literacy: Software tools help struggling students. Technology in Action, 2(6), 1–12.

2006

Dunn, M. W., Elder-Hinshaw, R., Nelson, J. M., & Manset-Williamson, G. (2006). Engaging older students with reading disabilities: Multimedia inquiry projects supported by reading assistive technology. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(1), 6–11.

Lange, A., McPhillips, M., Mulhern, G., & Wylie, J. (Summer 2006) Assistive software tools for secondarylevel students with literacy difficulties. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(3),13-22.

2005

Balajthy , B. (2005). Text-to-speech software for helping struggling readers. Reading Online, 8(4).

Hasselbring, T. & Bausch, M. (2005). Text-reader programs, word processing software, and other aids empower youth with learning disabilities. Educational Leadership, 1 72-75.

Wysocki, B. (2005). Louder, please: For some kids, the best way to read is to turn up the volume. School Library Journal, 51(4), 10-14.

2004

Anderson-Inman, L. (2004). Reading on the web: Making the most of digital text. Wisconsin State Reading Association Journal, 44(2), 8–14.

Edyburn, D.L. (2004). Measuring assistive technology outcomes in reading (Associate Editor's column). Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(1), 60-64.

2003

Bertelsen, C. & Fischer, J. (2002/2003). Mediating expository text; Scaffolding and the use of multimedia curricula. Reading Online, 6(5)

Edyburn, D.L. (2003). Learning from text. Special Education Technology Practice, 5(2), 16-27.

Edyburn, D.L. (2003). Reading difficulties in the general education classroom: A taxonomy of text modification strategies. Closing the Gap, 21(6), 1, 10-13, 31.

McKevitt,B. & Elliott, S. (2003). Effects and perceived consequences of using read-aloud and teacher-recommended testing accommodations on a reading achievement test. School Psychology Review, 32(4), 583-

2002

Cavanaugh , T. (2002). E-books and accommodations: Is this the future of print accommodation? Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 56-61.

Edyburn, D.L. (2002). Cognitive rescaling strategies: Interventions that alter the cognitive accessibility of text. Closing the Gap, April/May, 1, 10-11, 21.

Hecker,, L. Burns, L. Elkind, J. Elkind, K. & Katz, L. (2002). Benefits of assistive reading software for students with attention disorders. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 243-272.

2001

Castellani, J. & Jeffs, T. (2001). Emerging reading and writing strategies using technology. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(5), 60-67.

Guthrie, J. (2001). Contexts for engagement and motivation in reading. Reading Online, 4(8),

Quenneville, J. (Summer 2001). Tech tools for students with learning disabilities: Infusion into inclusive classrooms. Preventing School Failure, 45(4), 167-170.

1999

Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. (1999). Electronic books: Reading and studying with supportive resources. Reading Online.

Horney, M. (1999). Supported text in electronic reading environments. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15(2), 127-168.

1997

Anderson-Inman, L. & Horney, M. (1997). Reading instruction and remediation with the aid of computer speech. Behavior Research Methods: Instruments and Computers, 18, 93-99.
1994
Reinking, D. & Chan Lin, I.J. (1994). Graphic aids in electronic texts. Reading Research and Instruction, 33, 207-232.

1986

Olson, R., Foltz, G., & Wise B. (1986). Electronic books for secondary students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(6) 486-490.

1985

Reinking, D. & Schreiner, R. (1985). The effects of computer-mediated text on measures of reading comprehension and reading behavior. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 536-552.
1983

Abelson, A.G. & Petersen M. (1983). Efficacy of "talking books" for a group of reading disabled boys. Journal PErceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 567-570. (

Supported E-text

belinapasula — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:56:34 CDT

"In his day, Plato worried that the new technology of writing would irrevocably change the what, where, why, and how of learning. Today, new media pose similar challenges and opportunities. We believe these changes will not only broaden learning but deepen it for a great number of people. Learning through listening is just one example but a potentially powerful one for many individuals who would otherwise have diminished opportunities to become successful and lifelong learners. ... Twenty-first century learning environments should leverage the advantages of new digital media to provide these options—thereby expanding the potential circle of successful learners in today’s classrooms." David Rose & Bridget Dalton (2007)

An e-text (from "electronic text"; sometimes written as etext) is, generally, any text-based information that is available in a digitally encoded human-readable format and read by electronic means, but more specifically it refers to files in the ASCII character encoding.

E-text has the broad meaning of something electronic that represents words, a binary (or digital) version of a published work of text. Indeed, there are ASCII textbooks available. These are now referred to as, and the term is often used synonymously, an e-book. ...

The added functionality (such as searching within the text) and easy portability make e-text popular. Hand-held computers (such as Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs)) allow a large number of e-texts to be carried. These devices also allow the e-text to be read on the move more conveniently than text printed on paper.

Project Gutenberg and other various digital libraries are using e-text.

Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-text

_________________________

The concept of “supported text” was first developed by Anderson-Inman and Horney (1998; 1999) to describe electronic text that is modified or enhanced in ways that support student comprehension and extend student learning. The underlying assumption of “supported text” is that electronic text (e.g., a word, phrase, paragraph, page, or document) can be linked to additional text or other types of media in ways that promote better understanding of what the author intended to communicate. In addition, the concept assumes that electronic text can be structurally presented or organized in ways that accommodate to individual learning needs/styles or facilitate the accomplishment of targeted instructional objectives. Together, it is assumed that these enhancements can help readers overcome the conceptual and comprehension hurdles found in the text materials they are asked to read.

From multiple research projects focused on investigating the nature and impact of supportive electronic text, Anderson-Inman and Horney developed a typology to describe the specific types of resources that can be developed for electronic text. In earlier publications they describe eight different types of supportive resources that can be used to make the process of reading a specific text easier or more educational (Anderson-Inman & Horney, 1998; Horney & Anderson-Inman, 1999). Unlike typologies suggested by instructional design or educational psychology (e.g. Alessi & Trollip, 2001; Mayer, 2001), the resources in this list do not focus on what media is being used to modify or enhance the electronic text, but rather what function the supportive resource plays in the reading and learning process. Any specific type of resource can be implemented in a variety of different ways, using any number of different media.

In other words, these resources are distinguished on the basis of the role they play in the process of reading and learning, not on the basis of their media. This typology has evolved and expanded over time. The most recent description of the types of supportive resources that can be paired with, embedded in, or linked to electronic text appears in an article by Anderson-Inman & Horney (2007) where 11 types of supportive resources are described and illustrated. Quoting from this:

Presentational Resource: Enables the text and accompanying graphics to be presented in varying ways, hence customizable to meet the needs of individual readers
Navigational Resource: Provides tools that allow te reader to move within a documents or between documents
Translational Resource: Provides a one-to-one equivalent or simplified version that is more accessible or familiar to the reader; may focus on a word, phrase, paragraph, picture, or whole document; may be of same or different modality or media
Explanitory Resource: Provides information that seeks to clarify the what, where, how, or why of some concept, object, process, or event
Illustrative Resource: Provides a visual representation or example of something in the text; designed to support, supplement, or extend comprehension of text through illustrations or examples
Summarizing Resource: Provides a summarized or condensed way of viewing some feature of the document
Enrichment Resource: Provides supplementary information that is not strictly needed to comprehend the the text, but adds to the readers' appreciation or understanding of its importance or historical context
Instructional Resource: Provides prompts, questions, strategies, or instruction designed to teach some aspect of the text or how to read and interpret the text
Notational Resource: Provides tools for marking or taking notes on the text to enable later retrieval for purposes of studying or completing assignments
Collaborative Resource: Provides tools for working of sharing with other readers, the author, or some other audience
Evaluational Resource: Provides materials, prompts, and assignments designed to assess student learning from the text

These supportive resources are not mutually exclusive. Any given feature in an electronic text may serve more than one function and therefore serve as more than one type of supportive resource. For example, in the ELF version of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (http://www.canterburytales.org/canterbury_tales.html ), the reader is able to select one of several options for displaying the text, allowing the reader to have both the Old English and the Modern English version of a specific tale on the screen at the same time. This feature is both a presentational resource (in that it allows customization of the display to match the reader’s needs) and also a translational resource (in that it translates archaic words with unfamiliar spellings into modern equivalents). Similarly, a Table of Contents can be both a summarizing resource and a navigational resource. The list of chapters or sections within the digital text serves as a summarizing resource because it provides an overview of what is contained in the document. If each item in the Table of Contents is also linked to the section containing that content, and is also a navigational resource by facilitating movement within the document.

Retrieved (and adapted) from http://ncset.uoregon.edu./index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48:background&catid=47:theoretical-foundations&Itemid=60

____________________________

The National Center for Supported eText (NCSeT) is a federally funded research center investigating the impact of supported eText on students' reading comprehension of content area material. Current funding for NCSeT is through a five-year (2005-2010) cooperative agreement with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in the U.S. Department of Education. While research has begun in the area, Anderson-Inman & Horney (2007) stress "there is still much to be learned about how best to modify and enhance electronic text so that it is maximally supportive to the largest audience of potential readers- a goal aligned with the concept of universal design for learning" (p. 155). They outline four research areas related to supported eText as research directions for the future: 1) Research to determine effective forms and delivery modes for each resource type and subtype. 2) Research to identify and evaluate powerful combinations of eText resources. 3) Research to identify appropriate levels of student control and access to individual eText supports or combination of supports. 4) Research to investigate interactions between texts, resources, tasks, and students.

ATL Literature

belinapasula — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:49:49 CDT

Books

Denham, A., Bennett, D.E., Edyburn, D.L., Lahm, E.A., & Kleinert, H.L. (2001). Implementing technology to demonstrate higher levels of learning. In H.L. Kleinert & J.F. Kearns (Eds.), Alternative assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities (pp. 148-154). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Edyburn, D.L. (2008). Measuring assistive technology outcomes in education: Theory and practice. In P. Parette, G., Peterson-Karlan, & R. Ringlaben (Editors), Research-based and emerging practices in developmental disabilities (pp. 395-413). Austin, TX: ProEd.

Edyburn, D.L. (2005). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities: From consideration to outcome measurement. In D.L. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 239-270). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

Strangman, N., & Dalton, B. (2005). Technology for struggling readers: A review of the research. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.). The handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 545-569). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

Articles

2008

Edyburn, D.L. (2008). A new paradigm for instructional materials. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(4), 62-65.

2007

Fennema-Jansen, S., Edyburn, D.L., Smith, R.O., Wilson, S., & Binion, M. (2007). Developing a statewide system for providing and assessing outcomes of assistive technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(1), 41-56.

Wolfe, G., & Lee, C. (2007, November). Promising Practices for Providing Alternative Media to Postsecondary Students with Print Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Blackwell Publishing Limited), 22(4), 256-263. Retrieved July 30, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00254.x

2006

Edyburn, D.L. (2006). Searching for evidence of the effectiveness of assistive or instructional technology interventions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 74-78.

Edyburn, D.L. (2006). Failure is not an option: Collecting, reviewing, and acting on evidence for using technology to enhance academic performance. Learning and Leading With Technology, 34(1), 20-23.

Edyburn, D.L. (2006). Evaluating academic performance: With and without technology. MACUL Journal, 26(4), 26-27, 48.

Edyburn, D.L. (2006). What’s new about assistive technology outcomes in education? Technology Special Interest Section Quarterly, 16(2), 1-4.

Edyburn, D.L. (2006). Cognitive prostheses for students with mild disabilities: Is this what assistive technology looks like? Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(4), 62-65.

Edyburn, D.L. (2006). Re-examining the role of assistive technology in learning. Closing the Gap. 25(5), 10-11, 26.

Jeffs, T., Behrmann, M., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2006). Assistive technology and literacy learning: Reflections of parents and children. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(1), 37–44.

Lange, A. A., McPhillips, M., Mulhern, G., & Wylie, J. (2006). Assistive software tools for secondary-level students with literacy difficulties. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(3), 13–22.

2005

Edyburn, D., Fennema-Jansen, S., Hariharan, P., & Smith, R. (2005). Assistive technology outcomes: Implementation strategies for collecting data in the schools. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 2(1), Electronic Journal.

2004

Edyburn, D.L. (2004). Assisted learning: How assistive technologies developed for people with disabilities will affect learning for everyone. Threshold, 2(2), 22-25.

Edyburn, D.L., & Smith, R.O. (2004). Creating an assistive technology outcome measurement system: Validating the components. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 1(1). Electronic Journal.

Edyburn, D.L. (2004). Measuring assistive technology outcomes in reading (Associate Editor's column). Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(1), 60-64.

2003

Edyburn, D.L. (2003). Measuring assistive technology outcomes in writing. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(2), 60-64.

Edyburn, D.L. (2003). Measuring assistive technology outcomes: Key concepts. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(1), 53-55.

Edyburn, D.L. (2003). Rethinking assistive technology. Special Education Technology Practice, 5(4), 16-22.

Edyburn, D.L. (2003). Assistive technology resources for students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Parent, 33(10), 62-63, 66-67.

Pisha, B., Hitchcock, C., & Stahl, S. (2003). Assistive technologies resource list. Perspectives, 29 (4), 14–18.

2000

Edyburn, D.L. (2000). Assistive technology and mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1-24.

UDL Literature

belinapasula — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:25:44 CDT

Books

2008

Dalton, B.& Rose, D. (2008). Scaffolding digital comprehension. In C.C. Block & S.R. Parris (Eds.). Comprehension Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices, second edition. New York, Guilford Publications: 347-361.

Rose, D.H., Harbour, W.S., Johnston, C.S., Daley, S.G., & Abarbanell, L. (2008). Universal design for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and their application. In Burgstahler, S.E., & Cory, R.C. (Eds.). Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Rose, D. & Rappolt-Schlictmann, G. (2008). Applying universal design for learning with children living in poverty. In S.B. Neuman (Ed.). Educating the other America: Top experts tackle poverty, literacy and achievement in our schools. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

2006

Hall, T. & Stahl, S. (2006). Using universal design for learning to expand access to higher education. In M. Adams & S. Brown (Eds.), Inclusive Learning in Higher Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (Eds.). (2006). A Practical Reader in Universal Design for Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

2005

Rose, D., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (2005). The Universally Designed Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Rose, D., Hasselbring, T. S. et al. (2005). Assistive technology and Universal Design for Learning: two sides of the same coin. In D. Edyburn et al (Eds). Handbook of special education technology research and practice. Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design: 549-569.

2002

Rose, D. & Meyer A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Articles

Dalton, B., Rose, D., & Christodoulou, J. (in press). Technology’s role in advancing literacy and achievement for diverse adolescent learners. A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Rose, D. & Dalton, B. (in press). Learning in the digital age. In K.W. Fisher & T. Katzir (Eds.). Building Usable Knowledge in Mind, Brain, and Education. Cambridge University Press

2008

Rose, D. H., Hall, T. E. & Murray, E. (2008, Fall). Accurate for all: Universal design for learning and the assessment of students with learning disabilities. Perspectives on Language and Literacy , 23-28.

Sabia, R. (2008) Univeral design for learning and meaningful access to the curriculum. TASH Connections. 14-21

2007

Rose, D. (2007). Is a synthesis possible? Making doubly sure in research and application. In K.W. Fischer, J.H. Bernstein, & M.H. Immordino-Yang (Eds.). Mind, Brain, and Education in Reading Disorders. Cambridge University Press: 281-292.

Rose, D., & Dalton, B. (2007). Plato revisited: Learning through listening in the digital world. Paper prepared for Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic, Princeton, NJ.

Rose, D., & Strangman, N. (2007). Cognition and learning: Meeting the challenge of individual differences. Universal Access in the Information Society, 5(4), 381-391.

Rose, D. & Rose, K. (2007). Deficits in executive function processes: A curriculum-based intervention. In L. Meltzer (Ed.). Executive Function in Education: From Theory to Practice. New York: Guilford Publications.

2006

Johnstone, C. J., Altman, J., & Thurlow, M. (2006). A state guide to the development of universally designed assessments. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

McGuire, J.M., Scott, S.S., & Shaw, S.F. (2006). Universal design and its applications in educational environments. Remedial and Special Education, 27 (3), 166-175.

Rose, D., Harbour, W., Johnston, S., Daley, S., & Abarbanell, L. (2006). Universal Design for Learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and their application. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability; 19 (2), 135-151.

Shaw, A. (2006). Universal design and access for learning: Beyond the sidewalk. Exceptional Parent. 36 (5): 40-44.

Strangman, N., Hitchcock, C., Hall, T., Meo, G. & Coyne, P. (2006) Response-to-Instruction and Universal Design for Learning. Washington, DC: K8 Access Center/American Institutes of Research.

Van Garderen, D., & Whittaker, C. (2006). Planning differentiated, multicultural instruction for secondary inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(3), 12-20.

2005

Abell, M. & Lewis, P. (2005) Universal Design for Learning: A statewide improvement model for academic success. Information Technology and Disabilities (Vol. XI No. 1)

Avery C., Johnstone, C., & Milligan, C., (2005). Using universal design to unlock the potential for academic achievement of at-risk learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(2), (22-31)

Axelson, M. (2005) Maximizing the effectiveness of online accountability: Assessments for students with disabilities. Research brief. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory at Edvantia. Retrieved online at

Firchow, N. (2005) Universal Design for Learning: Improved access for all. Published online by SchwabLearning.org

Howard, K.L. (2004, February). Universal Design for Learning: Meeting the needs of all students. Learning and Leading with Technology, 31 (5), 26-29.

Jackson, R. (2005). Curriculum Access for Students with Low-Incidence Disabilities: The Promise of Universal Design for Learning. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.

Meo, G. (2005). Curriculum access for all: Universal Design for Learning. Harvard Education Letter 21 (5).

Meyer, A. & Rose, D.H. (2005) The future is in the margins: The role of technology and disability in educational reform. In Rose, D.H., Meyer, A. & Hitchcock, C. The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

2004

Harac, L. (2004, October). A level playing field. Teacher Magazine, XVI(2), 40-45. Online at (online access requires registration).

Howard, K.L. (2004, February). Universal Design for Learning: Meeting the needs of all students. Learning and Leading with Technology, 31 (5), 26-29. Universal Design for Learning: Meeting the Needs of All Students

Stahl, S. (2004). The promise of accessible textbooks: Increased achievement for all students. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum (NCAC), Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved July30, 2009 from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_accessible.html.

2003

Hitchcock, C. & Stahl, S. (2003). Assistive technology, universal design, universal design for learning: Improved opportunities. Journal of Special Education Technology, (18)4.

Howard, J. B. (2003). Universal Design for Learning: An essential concept for teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 19(4): 113-118.

Muller, E. & Tschantz, J. (2003). Universal Design for Learning: Four state initiatives. Alexandria VA: NASDSE Project Forum

2002

Gordon, D. T. (2002). Curriculum access in the digital age. Harvard Education Letter 18(1):1-5.

Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A. et al. (2002). Providing new access to the general education curriculum. Teaching Exceptional Children 35(2): 8-17.

ATL Key Experts

belinapasula — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:46:40 CDT

Dave Edyburn

Dave Edyburn teaches in the areas of mild disabilities related to learning and behavior. His research investigates the use of technology to enhance teaching, learning and performance. He has authored over 150 articles and book chapters on the use of technology in special education. His work spans the 36-page booklet, “What Every Teacher Should Know About Assistive Technology” to the 900-page “Handbook of Special Education Technology Research and Practice”.

Edyburn is Co-Principal Investigator of the Universal Design Infusion of Technology and Evaluation for Accessible Campuses of Higher Education (UDITEACH) Project, a federally-funded model demonstration project that seeks to infuse universal design across college campuses.

He is also President-elect of the Special Education Technology special interest group (SIG) of the International Society for Technology in Education and a Past President of the Technology and Media (TAM) Division of the Council for Exceptional Children. Edyburn received an M.S. from Illinois State University and a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

(Retrieved from http://www4.uwm.edu/soe/directory/profiles/edyburn.cfm)

___________________

Joy Zabala

Joy Zabala is a pioneer in special education and assistive technology. In the 1980s—after many years as a distinguished general educator in schools in Georgia, Florida, and Caracas, Venezuela—Joy began exploring ways to use technology to extend learning opportunities to all students, including those with disabilities. As a technologist, special educator, and teacher trainer, Joy earned national recognition for her work.

Currently, Joy is the project manager of the AIM Consortium, a 15-state project headed by the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) and funded by a grant from the Office of Special Education Programs of the U. S. Department of Education. The goal of the AIM Consortium is to improve the quality, availability, and timely delivery of accessible instructional materials to K-12 students with print disabilities.

Joy is also developer of the SETT Framework, a tool that helps collaborative teams select, develop, and use a variety of solutions to support the communication, participation, and achievement of students with disabilities. She is a founding member of the QIAT Community and facilitator of the QIAT List. Joy is also a past-president and current newsletter editor of the Technology and Media Division (TAM) of the Council for Exceptional Children.

Joy received her bachelors in Elementary and Early Childhood Education from the University of Florida, her masters in Curriculum and Instruction in Early Childhood Education from Florida Atlantic University, and her doctorate in Special Education Personnel Preparation from the University of Kentucky. She is a strong supporter of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Assistive Technology as complementary supports for student achievement.

(Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/about/staff/jzabala.html)

UDL Online Artifacts

belinapasula — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:31:20 CDT

UDL Key Experts

belinapasula — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:53:16 CDT

David Rose
BA, MA, EdD

- helped found CAST (the Center for Applied Special Technology) in 1984 with a vision of expanding educational opportunities for all students through the innovative use of new technologies

- developed the theory and practical framework of Universal Design for Learning.

- serves on the faculty of the Harvard Graduate School of Education where he teaches a course in Universal Design for Learning as well as a year-long course with Howard Gardner and Kurt Fischer called Cognitive Development, Education, and the Brain.

Current Projects

Principled Science Assessment Design for Students with Disabilities – Chief Scientist, Cognition and Learning for a U.S. DOE-funded project in collaboration with SRI and the University of Maryland to pair UDL with the assessment design techniques and tools of evidence-centered design to develop assessment items that more accurately reflect outcomes for all students on statewide middle school science assessments.

The Universally Designed Science Notebook: An Intervention to Support Students with Disabilities in Science Learning – Chief Scientist, Cognition and Learning for a U.S. DOE-funded project in collaboration with the Lawrence Hall of Science at the University of California-Berkeley to investigate a universally designed science notebook to support 4th- and 5th-grade students, in particular those with high-incidence disabilities, in learning science.

Universal Design of Inquiry-Based Middle and High School Science Curricula – Principal Investigator for a National Science Foundation-funded project in collaboration with Education Development Center (EDC) and the University of Michigan, to infuse UDL into middle school and high school science curricula and create systems to support curriculum developers in creating universally designed science curricula.

National Instructional Materials Standard (NIMAS) Development Center – Principal Investigator for an OSEP-funded center to provide national leadership to further the development and maintenance of the NIMAS work and support its large-scale implementation.

National Instructional Materials Standard (NIMAS) Technical Assistance Center – Principal Investigator for an OSEP-funded center to supports the efficient production of baseline NIMAS files and the conversion of these files into alternate formats.

AIM Consortium – Principal Investigator of an OSEP-funded grant to work intensively with 15 states on NIMAS implementation. The Consortium works to improve academic outcomes for approximately 1.3 million K-12 students with print disabilities through the timely acquisition and delivery of high-quality educational materials in accessible formats (audio, Braille, eText, large print).

Center for Implementation of Technology in Education (CITEd) – Co-Principal Investigator of an OSEP-funded center in collaboration with The American Institutes of Research (AIR) and the Education Development Center (EDC) to create a cohesive, coordinated system of technical assistance to support state and local education agencies in implementing and evaluating selected evidence-based technology practices.

(Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/about/staff/drose.html)

--------------------------------------------------------

Skip Stahl
BA, MS

- nationally recognized expert in accessible digital materials and Universal Design for Learning

- project director for the NIMAS Development Center, leading a national initiative implementing the transformation of K–12 textbooks into specialized accessible formats for students with print disabilities.

Current Projects

NIMAS Standards Board – Chair of this OSEP-funded grant, the board maintains, advances, and supports the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS) and facilitates the timely provision of accessible versions of core print instructional materials to qualifying students.

NIMAS Development Center – Project Director of an OSEP-funded grant, the NIMAS Development Center seeks to improve the original Standard by identifying new research and technological advances relevant to the Standard. The Center also explores existing and new distribution models for the provision of accessible materials to students with disabilities.

AIM Consortium – Co-Director of an OSEP-funded grant to work intensively with 15 states on National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS) implementation. The goal of the consortium is to put into place effective systems to ensure that students with print disabilities receive accessible materials as mandated by IDEA.

(Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/about/staff/sstahl.html)

ATL Online Artifacts

belinapasula — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:30:47 CDT

http://assistivetek.blogspot.com/

http://assistivetech.ning.com/

Universal Design for Learning

belinapasula — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:04:41 CDT

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework for designing educational environments that enable all learners to gain knowledge, skills, and enthusiasm for learning. This is accomplished by simultaneously reducing barriers to the curriculum and providing rich supports for learning.

As any educator knows, students come to the classroom with a variety of needs, skills, talents, and interests. For many learners, the typical curriculum—which includes goals, instructional methods, classroom materials, and assessments—is littered with barriers and roadblocks, while supports are relatively few. Faced with an inflexible curriculum, students and teachers are expected to make extraordinary adjustments. UDL turns this scenario around, placing the burden to adapt on the curriculum itself.

Educators, including curriculum and assessment designers, can improve educational outcomes for diverse learners by applying the following principles to the development of goals, instructional methods, classroom materials and assessments.

Provide multiple and flexible methods of presentation to give students with diverse learning styles various ways of acquiring information and knowledge.
Provide multiple and flexible means of expression to provide diverse students with alternatives for demonstrating what they have learned, and
Provide multiple and flexible means of engagement to tap into diverse learners' interests, challenge them appropriately, and motivate them to learn.

The term “universal design” is borrowed from the movement in architecture and product development that calls for curb cuts, automatic doors, video captioning, speakerphones, and other features to accommodate a vast variety of users, including those with disabilities. Experience shows that all such flexible designs are less expensive and cumbersome than costly retrofits, and that, in fact, everyone benefits from universal design features, as anyone who has watch video with captions in a busy gym or airport can attest. Students differ from one another in many ways and present unique learning needs in the classroom setting, yet high standards are important for all students.

By incorporating supports for particular students, it is possible to improve learning experiences for everyone, without the need for specialized adaptations down the line. For example, captioned video is of great help to Deaf students—but is also beneficial to students who are learning English, students who are struggling readers, students with attention deficits, and even students working in a noisy classroom. The advent of digital multimedia, adaptive technologies, the World Wide Web, and other advancements make it possible on a broad scale to individualize education for individual students. Developers and practitioners of UDL apply the inherent flexibility of digital media to individualize educational goals, classroom materials, instructional methods and assessments. Thus, each student has an appropriate point-of-entry into the curriculum—and a pathway towards attainment of educational goals.

Retrieved from http://www.advocacyinstitute.org/UDL/index.shtml