Search results

This chapter presents “what we know” about the application of technology to instruction for students with learning and behavioral disabilities. Information is presented on research-based effective practices in technological interventions for teaching specific academic skills, delivering content at the secondary level and using technology as a tool for assessment. The chapter concludes with a discussion on Universal Design for Learning and the promises this paradigm holds for educating not only students with special needs, but all learners. The chapter begins where parents and teachers typically begin: the consideration of technology.

Reading fluency, which is critical for developing reading comprehension, is a fundamental skill in both school and life. However, many students with learning and behavioral disabilities are disfluent readers. To improve reading performance for these learners, educators should implement practices shown by reliable research to cause improved reading fluency. In this chapter, following a discussion of reading fluency and its importance, we describe two instructional practices that educators might use to improve students’ reading fluency: colored filters and repeated reading. The research on the colored filters is, at best, inconclusive, whereas the research literature suggests that repeated reading is an effective practice. To bridge the gap between research and practice and improve the reading fluency of students with learning and behavioral disabilities, educators and other stakeholders should prioritize the use of research-based practices (e.g., repeated reading) but avoid practices without clear research support (e.g., colored filters).

A substantial number of students read significantly below grade level, and students with disabilities perform far below their non-disabled peers. Reading achievement data indicate that many students with and at-risk for reading disabilities require more intensive reading interventions. This chapter utilizes the theoretical model of the Simple View of Reading to describe the benefit of early reading instruction, targeting both word reading and word meaning. In addition, evidence is presented supporting the use of word meaning instruction to improve accurate and efficient word reading for students who have failed to respond to explicit decoding instruction.

There has been much discussion in the literature in recent years on the problems involved in the identification of children with reading disabilities. One of the most influential sources of knowledge in the field of learning disabilities is the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). This agency has typically been a major funding source for methodologically rigorous reading intervention research. Further, such research has contributed significantly to the validity of identifying children suspected of learning disabilities as “treatment resistors” (e.g. Vellutino et al., 1996). Yet, the NICHD has recently been the focus of some controversy. The purpose of this chapter was to synthesize NICHD funded research conducted over the past 10 years via a meta-analysis to determine what can be generalized from this body of research that can be applied to the identification of students with learning disabilities in reading. The results of the synthesis were that a prototypical intervention study has a mean effect size (ES) of 0.67 (SD=0.42), indicating that most interventions designed to increase reading skills were effective. The overall ES ranged, however, from 0.19 to 1.76, and therefore some criterion could be established for identifying treatment resistors. Performance below an overall ES of 0.25 was suggested as one of several criteria for identifying children with potential reading disabilities. However, this suggestion must be put in the context of intervention outcomes. The synthesis indicated that: (a) performance was more pronounced on skill or process measures (e.g. ES varies from 0.45 to 1.28 on measures of segmentation and pseudoword reading) than on measures of actual reading (ES varies from 0.17 to 0.60 on real word and comprehension measures); (b) the magnitude of effect sizes were more related to instructional activity (e.g. explicit instruction/practice) than to the content of instruction (e.g. type of phonics instruction); and (c) the bulk of intervention studies focused on a narrow range of reading behaviors (i.e. phonological awareness). Implications related to identification and sound teaching practice versus content training of reading instruction (e.g. phonological skills, comprehension skills) are discussed.

The primary purpose of this chapter is to synthesize the existing research that describes children who are unresponsive to generally effective early literacy interventions. Studies were selected in which: (a) children ranged from preschoolers to third graders and were at-risk for reading disabilities; (b) treatments targeted early literacy; (c) outcomes reflected reading development; and (d) students’ unresponsiveness to intervention was described. The search yielded 23 studies, eight of which were designed primarily to identify characteristics of unresponsive students; the remaining 15 studies focused on treatment effectiveness, but also identified and described unresponsive students. A majority of unresponsive students had phonological awareness deficits; additional characteristics included phonological retrieval or encoding deficits, low verbal ability, behavior problems, and developmental delays. Methodological issues are discussed that complicate comparisons of non-responders across studies. A secondary purpose of this chapter is to describe findings from recent longitudinal studies that support the hypothesis that non-responders may be the truly reading disabled. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

This chapter reviews problems in the identification of learning disabilities, with particular reference to issues involving discrepancy between IQ and achievement as a criterion for definition. Alternatives to present procedures for identification of learning disabilities are described. It is concluded that no presently proposed alternative meets all necessary criteria for identification of learning disabilities, and that radically altering or eliminating present conceptualizations of learning disabilities may be problematic. The major problems of identification of learning disabilities – including over-identification, variability, and specificity – can be addressed, it is suggested, by increasing specificity and consistency of state criteria and strict adherence to identification criteria on the local implementation level. However, further research in alternative methods for identifying learning disabilities is warranted.

Reading comprehension is a critical area of instruction for all students, but particularly for students with learning disabilities (LD) that impede their ability to understand what they read. This synthesis includes 30 intervention studies on reading comprehension for students with LD conducted in several countries and all regions of the United States. Specifically, the current review focuses on the efficacy of these strategies across grade levels, with various types of reading materials, and in conjunction with other instructional components that have potential to enhance instructional benefits to students. Results suggest that reading comprehension instruction is effective for improving the skills of this population.

Evidence-based practices have been shown to meaningfully improve learner outcomes by bodies of high-quality research studies and should therefore be prioritized for use in schools, especially with struggling learners such as students with learning disabilities. Although many resources are available on the internet with information about evidence-based practices, the magnitude and technical nature of the websites are often overwhelming to practitioners and are therefore not frequently used as part of the instructional decision-making process. In this chapter, we aim to provide a “one stop shopping experience” for readers interested in evidence-based practices for students with learning disabilities by reviewing five relevant website. Specifically, for each website we review (a) the procedures used to classify the evidence-based status of practices, (b) the classification scheme used to indicate the level of research support for practices, and (c) the practices reviewed for students with learning disabilities and their evidence-based classification. We conclude with a discussion of issues related to interpreting and applying information on evidence-based practices from these websites.

Purpose – To share a model of preparing special educators to teach reading to students with mild-to-moderate disabilities.

Design/methodology/approach – The authors describe a specific model for preparing special educators to teach reading.

Findings – Data are provided regarding the effectiveness of this model of special education teacher preparation based on performance of students with disabilities who participated in the program.

Research limitations/implications – This research was done as a program evaluation and may have validity and generalizability limitations.

Practical implications – Other institutions of higher education may gain insight on how a similar preservice teacher preparation program could be developed and implemented at their institution.

Originality/value – The school/university partnership described is extremely unique and effective in preparing future special educators to teach reading to students with disabilities.