LITERACY INSTRUCTION, TECHNOLOGY, AND

STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES:

RESEARCH WE HAVE, RESEARCH WE NEED

Michael J. Kennedy and Donald D. Deshler

Abstract. Technology, w h e t h e r assistive (AT) or i n s t r u c t i o n a l

(IT), has p l a y e d a n u n e v e n role in t h e field of l e a r n i n g disabilities
since its i n c e p t i o n m o r e t h a n a h a l f c e n t u r y ago. In addition, t e c h ­
n o l o g y is in a c o n s t a n t state o f flux; h e n c e , researchers h a v e b e e n
c h a l l e n g e d t o c o n d u c t a p p r o p r i a t e e x p e r i m e n t a l testing of inter­
v e n t i o n s before t h e y are o u t d a t e d o r m a d e irrelevant b y a d v a n c e s
in h a r d w a r e a n d software. As schools seek t o i m p r o v e l e a r n i n g
o u t c o m e s for all students using tiered i n s t r u c t i o n a l m o d e l s s u c h
as response t o i n t e r v e n t i o n (RTI), practitioners n e e d assistance in
capitalizing o n AT, IT, o r a c o m b i n a t i o n of t h e t w o , t o guide a n d
e n r i c h literacy i n s t r u c t i o n for students w i t h l e a r n i n g disabilities.
This a r t i c l e p r e s e n t s a c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e w o r k for m u l t i m e d i a
i n s t r u c t i o n a l design g r o u n d e d in t h e o r y a n d e m p i r i c a l research.
The article c o n c l u d e s w i t h r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s for h o w t o integrate
m u l t i m e d i a literacy i n s t r u c t i o n w i t h i n RTI f r a m e w o r k s

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 Fortunately, considerable progress has been made in
learning disabilities (LD) perform and the demands designing and validating interventions and instruc­
of the curriculum that they are expected to meet is tional protocols that markedly improve academic out­
often wide. This is especially the case as students move comes for students with LD. Increasingly, protocols
into the secondary grades where curricular expectations have included technology-based solutions based on the
accelerate and content demands (e.g., history, science, rapid development of technology tools focused on read­
mathematics) are markedly different. ing. Developments in technology-based supports, espe­
The long-term consequences of the challenges stu­ cially in the area of literacy instruction for students with
dents with LD face are underscored in data from the LD, have promising implications for instruction and
National Longitudinal Transition Study II, which found learning (McKenna & Proctor, 2006). Although the evi­
(a) 2 1 % of students with LD are five or more grade levels dence base for using technology in the literacy instruc­
below in reading; (b) 3 1 % of students with LD drop out tion of students with LD is relatively small (Okolo &
of school compared to 9.4% of nondisabled peers; and Bouck, 2007), curriculum designers and educators have
(c) only 1 1 % of students with LD attend postsecondary the opportunity to integrate validated instructional
institutions (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005). practices with technology to markedly improve the

Volume 33, Fall 2010 289

design and implementation of instructional protocols assistive in nature. However, the intent of this innova­
and practices (Kamil, 2003). tion and research is not limited to promoting access
With the promise of technology to enhance literacy- (Anderson-Inman, 2009). This research group seeks to
related outcomes, this article will (a) briefly review cur­ improve student decoding, fluency, and reading com­
rent efforts in technology to address literacy instruction prehension through various embedded supports such as
for students with LD; (b) present a conceptual frame­ electronic dictionaries, links to outside resources, and
work for designing multimedia instruction intended to utilization of cognitive learning strategies (Anderson-
augment literacy learning of children with LD; and (c) Inman & Horney, 2007). Empirical data from the NCSeT
outline recommendations for integrating multimedia group have established a record of positive outcomes
literacy instruction into a tiered instructional frame­ among students from various age groups and content
works (e.g., response to intervention) and pose ques­ areas (see Anderson-Inman, 2009).
tions for future research. Other examples of empirically validated uses of tech­
nology to promote literacy instruction target areas of
TECHNOLOGY AND LITERACY vocabulary instruction and reading comprehension
INSTRUCTION, WHAT W E KNOW instruction. Xin and Rieth (2001) used a series of videos
Numerous lines of sustained research have been in part to provide vocabulary and comprehension
undertaken in the field of LD to promote the develop­ instruction using the construct of anchored instruction
ment of strong literacy and overall learning skills for (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990).
students (cf. Deshler & Schumaker, 2006; Fuchs, Fuchs, Students who were taught using the technology-based
& Burish, 2 0 0 0 ; Graham & Harris, 2 0 0 5 ; Scruggs, materials made significant gains in number of vocabu­
Mastropieri, Berkeley, & Graetz, in press). Each line of lary words learned vs. control condition students.
research shares a common attribute: It focuses on build­ Likewise, Kim and her colleagues (Kim et al., 2006) used
ing capacity within children to become proficient learn­ the essential principles of the Collaborative Strategic
ers (across various contextual settings) without the need Reading program (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996) and built
for ongoing external support. Likewise, technology- upon them to create a technology-based program
based solutions, when designed from theoretically (Computer-Assisted Collaborative Strategic Reading;
sound pedagological principles, are often tools that CACSR). The CACSR was used during an experimental
schools can use to augment traditional face-to-face lit­ study to teach reading comprehension and other liter­
eracy instruction (Boone & Higgins, 2007; McKenna & acy skills to students with disabilities; findings from this
Walpole, 2007; Torgesen & Barker, 1995). research favored students who had exposure to the tech­
While sustained lines of research in the area of tech­ nology-based program.
nology are only beginning to emerge (cf. Anderson- In these experimental studies with a focus on literacy
Inman, 2009), this field has the capacity to benefit from outcomes for students with LD, researchers began with
existing empirical groundwork as a launching point. theoretically based instructional principles and intro­
Below we attempt to contextualize current technology- duced logical uses of technology to deliver literacy
based literacy instruction by (a) reviewing a select num­ instruction. As a result, the combination of the effective
ber of studies that examine technology tools that practice with a technology-based solution proved to be
promote literacy-related skill development, and (b) an effective intervention. We argue that further research
highlighting an existing framework for integrating that follows this model is needed in the area of tech­
technology into literacy instruction (King-Sears & nology-based solutions specific to literacy instruction.
Evmenova, 2007). Building sustained lines of research takes time and
Technology and Literacy Instruction resources; yet, the research we have clearly shows that
(a) technology can be useful in promoting literacy learn­
While a review of the literature on technology-based
ing for students with LD, and (b) existing evidence-
solutions and literacy instruction garners a number of
based practices for literacy instruction may be of benefit
articles (e.g., Edyburn, 2003, 2006, 2007), few offer evi­
to teachers and students if repacked and delivered using
dence of the impact of technology on literacy instruc­
technology.
tion. Nevertheless, research lines do exist. For example,
Anderson-Inman and her colleagues from the National Technology Integration Framework
Center for Supported eText (NCSeT) have undertaken a Regardless of the growing research, if we are to see
sustained line of research in support of the concept of technology integration within literacy instruction, edu­
supported electronic text (eText). Supported eText helps cators need guidelines or explicit instructions for how
students gain access to text through simple changes to various uses of technology fit within their existing
font size, color, and availability of other tools that are repertoires of practice (McKenna & Proctor, 2006). An

Learning Disability Quarterly 290

example of a practitioner-friendly framework for tech­ Bouck, 2007). The purpose of this conceptual frame­
nology integration into literacy instruction is King-Sears work (see Figure 1) is to ground future research and
and Evmenova's (2007) TECH framework: "Target the implementation of technology-based solutions within
students' needs and the learning outcomes; Examine tiered instructional models (e.g., RTI) to improve liter­
the technology choices, then decide what to use; Create acy skills for students with LD. The conceptual frame­
opportunities to integrate technology with other work is organized around four major theoretical
instructional activities; and Handle the implementa­ principles that individually and collectively influence
tion, and monitor the impact on the students' learning" design and delivery of literacy instruction for students
(p. 10). with LD: (a) the deictic relationship between technol­
Recent research has confirmed that many practition­ ogy and literacy (Leu, 2000); (b) technological pedago-
ers working with students with LD do not use evidence- logical content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2005); (c)
based strategies found to help raise literacy achievement multimedia instructional design principles (Mayer,
(Klingner, Urbach, Golos, Brownell, & Menon, 2010). As 2009); and (d) the enzymatic theory of education (Fox,
researchers and practitioners consider technology-based 1983; Larsen, 1995).
solutions that are available (given limited district and As illustrated in Figure 1, the center of the proposed
school resources) for various learning scenarios, the conceptual framework is the proactive student-centered
TECH framework should be viewed as a straightforward learning theory, the enzymatic theory of education
and logical approach to individualizing instruction to (ETE; Fox, 1983). Our philosophy regarding the purpose
meet the needs of students, while not using technology of special education for students with LD is to help stu­
simply because it happens to be available. A limitation dents remediate areas of academic struggle through
of this framework is the burden left to practitioners in individualized interventions comprised of a menu of
terms of recognizing the cognitive demands of various evidence-based practices. Therefore, our graphic shows
learning activities and sorting through available tech­ the ETE surrounded by instructional design theories and
nology options to deliver efficient and effective literacy practices intended to promote active learning in specific
instruction. areas of need.
Maccini, Gagnon, and Hughes (2002) conducted a The Deictic Relationship Between Technology and
significant review of technology-based practices for sec­ Literacy
ondary students with LD and noted several recommen­ We have entered a period of rapid and continuous
dations to the field. Two of these recommendations are change in the forms and functions of literacy.
as follows: (a) use technology systematically and strate­ Today, changing technologies for information and
gically in instruction; and (b) incorporate effective communication and changing envisionments for
instructional design principles within technology-based their use rapidly and continuously redefine the
instruction (Kelly, Carnine, Gersten, & Grossen, 1986; nature of literacy. (Leu, 2000. pp. 744-745)
Kelly, Gersten, & Carnine, 1990).
The concept of deixis within the field of literacy and
We use these two key recommendations in offering a
technology means that the overall nature and essence of
conceptual framework that seeks to bridge theory and
literacy and technology are changing so rapidly and
practice with respect to technology-based solutions and
thoroughly that it is difficult to define and describe
effective literacy instruction for students with LD. It is
either, let alone both in tandem (Leu, 2000). In a sense,
our belief that practitioners need more explicit guidance
the seemingly obvious questions "what is literacy?" and
in terms of selecting or designing technology-supported
"what is instructional technology?" (and their respec­
(e.g., multimedia) materials to support the literacy
tive answers) have become moving targets. For
learning needs of students with LD. This need for
researchers and practitioners seeking to understand the
explicit guidance provides the rationale for the concep­
interrelated and dynamic relationships between literacy
tual framework presented here.
and technology, the deictic nature of this relationship
makes experimental rigor demanded in today's research
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
climate a complex proposition (Leu, 2000).
Clearly, the literacy of yesterday is not the literacy Across the field of education, rapid and often unpre­
of today, and it will not be the literacy of tomorrow. dictable advances in technology are well documented.
(Leu, 2000, p. 744) However, the concept of literacy is also an evolving con­
While the empirical base for using IT to improve lit­ struct (Leu, 2000). Hence, tying down a satisfactory def­
eracy skills and outcomes for students with LD is still inition and description of literacy is problematic (Moje,
solidifying, existing data provide ample rationale to 2007). A significant line of research has been under­
warrant future inquiries (Maccini et al., 2002; Okolo & taken in the "new literacies" (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear,

Volume 33, Fall 2010 291

 Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Deictic N a t u r e of
Literacy a n d T e c h n o l o g y
(Leu, 2 0 0 0 )

Enzymatic
T h e o r y of
Education
(Fox, 1 9 8 3 )

Technology
C o g n i t i v e T h e o r y of
Pedagological Content
Multimedia Learning
Knowledge
(Mayer, 2 0 0 9 )
(Koehler & Mishra, 2 0 0 5 )

& Leu, 2008) to learn more about the cognitive and landscape of how technology influences literacy
practical differences promoted by changing construc­ instruction, except trying to keep up (Leu, 2 0 0 0 ) .
tions of what it means to be literate. Therefore, as educators consider technology as a
Systemic problems ofdeixis. With regard to technol­ strategy to augment literacy instruction, a major con­
ogy-based literacy interventions with limited rigorous sideration will be the capacity to rapidly integrate
field and experimental testing, educators may be cau­ technology-based solutions into existing teaching reper­
tious about the practices they select for classroom use. toires. Educators at all levels of the profession have a
An important consideration in this respect is whether long history of resisting or rejecting new interventions
the technology-based interventions have an underly­ that are not a logical fit with their existing approaches
ing theoretical basis. Therefore, it is critical that sus­ to teaching. Technology can play a role in helping
tained programs of research in this area be undertaken teachers structure individualized literacy instruction;
(Anderson-Inman, 2009; Edyburn, 2007; Maccini et al., however, the use of technology must be augmentative
2002; Okolo & Bouck, 2007). This research will guide and logical in terms of its impact on the overall instruc­
practitioners attempting to provide individualized tional plan (Larsen, 1995; Maccini et al., 2002).
services to students with LD across tiers of instruction. Researchers have developed an instructional design
With that said, Klingner et al.'s (2010) recent findings framework that seamlessly integrates technology, con­
remind us that not all educators implement evidence- tent, and pedagogy for design and delivery of various
based practices with the fidelity necessary for success. types of content, known as technological pedagological
Therefore, researchers must ensure new practices are content knowledge, or TPACK for short (Koehler &
powerful, but also usable by the intended audience. Mishra, 2005). Koehler and Mishra describe TPACK as
Technological Pedagological Content Knowledge an extension of Shulman's (1987) classic construct of
(TPACK) pedagological content knowledge. We see TPACK as a
TPACK and the deictic interplay of literacy and helpful construct for conceptualizing and organizing the
technology. Practitioners, teacher educators, and re­ role of IT for delivering literacy instruction when teach­
searchers can do little to alter the rapidly changing ing students with LD across all tiers of an RTI model.

Learning Disability Quarterly 292

 TPACK and tiered instructional models (RTI). For The CLT holds that humans have a limited working
practitioners providing services to students within an memory; therefore, when incoming stimuli overwhelm
RTI framework, the question of how TPACK can guide the limited cognitive resources in working memory,
instructional design across increasingly intensive new learning cannot take place (Chandler & Sweller,
settings is a significant issue to be addressed by 1991). The DPT, in turn, reflects the belief that humans
researchers. First, it is critical that evidence-based prac­ have capacity to internalize information through visual
tices that address literacy skills be in place across all and auditory channels in working memory (Paivio,
tiers of a school's instructional settings and that 1986). The combination of these two theories and asso­
practitioners are armed with a menu of appropriate ciated research findings underwrite Mayer's CTML and
IT options to augment existing strategies. Second, its three assumptions about human cognition. The
researchers, teacher educators, and practitioners must three assumptions of the CTML are as follows:
reflect on the specific demands related to literacy native (a) Humans possess two separate channels for pro­
to the various content areas and curriculum standards. cessing visual and auditory information; (b)
And finally, typical elements of RTI frameworks such as Humans are limited in the amount of information
universal screenings and progress monitoring must that they can process in each channel at one time;
guide practitioners in terms of matching the individual and (c) Humans engage in active learning by
needs of students with evidence-based and IT-driven attending to relevant incoming information,
practices that address the demands of the various con­ organizing selected information into coherent
tent areas and learning tasks. mental representations, and integrating mental
The TPACK framework is potentially useful for select­ representations with other knowledge. (Mayer,
ing and embedding technology that complements liter­ 2009, p. 63)
acy instructional practices given different instructional A key component of the CTML is an understanding
settings and the unique learning needs of students. that learners' cognitive capacity is influenced by three
However, the recognition that technology should com­ kinds of cognitive load during learning, termed the tri-
plement existing approaches to instruction, not sup­ archic model of cognitive load (DeLeeuw & Mayer,
plant them, leaves a significant piece of the puzzle 2 0 0 8 ) . W h e n designing instructional materials to
unsolved, especially for the typical educator responsible address Mayer's three assumptions, it is necessary to use
for the education of students with LD. The piece fre­ research-based design principles that address each spe­
quently overlooked or taken for granted by practitioners cific element of the triarchic model of cognitive load by
is the actual "looks and sounds" of specific technology- (a) limiting extraneous processing, (b) managing essen­
based program or intervention. In the next section we tial processing, and (c) fostering generative processing
describe an important instructional design principle (Mayer, 2009).
that can be used to guide construction of multimedia Grounded in CLT and DPT, Mayer has outlined 10
materials. interdependent, research-validated design principles
that, when brought together, constitute a "construction
Multimedia Instructional Design Principles checklist" for designing instructional materials that are
Educators must give thought to the impact technol­ effective for fostering learning (see Mayer, 2009). The
ogy has on the cognitive processes of the intended audi­ steps and a brief description are listed in Table 1.
ence (Boone & Higgins, 2007; Mayer, 2009). This is one The CTML and literacy learning of students with
reason why researchers from all sides of the technology LD. Students with LD need instruction that actively
discussion agree that technology must not be used gra­ reflects on and addresses limitations with respect to pro­
tuitously during instruction (King-Sears & Evmenova, cessing speed, working memory, and overall reading
2007). Literacy instruction should reflect multimedia performance (Johnson, Humphrey, Mellard, Woods, &
design principles that are a match for the cognitive Swanson, 2 0 1 0 ; Swanson, 2001). The core of any liter­
learning needs of the intended population of learners, acy instruction should include evidence-based practices
as much as being a logical addition to the overall plan (EBPs); therefore, embedding EBPs within a TPACK
for teaching. framework for multimedia instruction is a logical design
Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The cogni­ strategy (Harris, Mishra, & Kohler, 2009). However, sim­
tive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) is a learner- ply using TPACK does not necessarily address Mayer's
oriented instructional theory and empirically validated assumptions of how humans utilize limited cognitive
design process (Mayer, 2009). The CTML is grounded in resources to process information, and thereby meet the
the cognitive load theory (CLT; Chandler & Sweller, individualized cognitive needs of students with LD.
1991) and the dual processing theory (DPT; Paivio, In reality, many uses of technology to deliver or aug­
1986). ment literacy instruction can be distracting, disruptive,

Volume 33, Fall 2010 293

Table 1
Mayer's Design Principles as Aligned with the Triarchic Model of Cognitive Load

Triarchic
Model of Research-Based
Cognitive Load Instructional Design
(DeLeeuw & Principles (Mayer, Brief Description of Mayer's Instructional
Mayer, 2008) 2009) Design Principles (Mayer, 2009)

Limit C o h e r e n c e Principle Instructional materials are e n h a n c e d w h e n

Extraneous irrelevant or e x t r a n e o u s i n f o r m a t i o n is
Processing excluded

Signaling Principle L e a r n i n g is e n h a n c e d w h e n explicit cues are

p r o v i d e d t h a t signal t h e b e g i n n i n g o f m a j o r
h e a d i n g s or e l e m e n t s of t h e m a t e r i a l b e i n g
covered

R e d u n d a n c y Principle I n c l u s i o n of e x t e n s i v e t e x t ( t r a n s c r i p t i o n ) o n
s c r e e n a l o n g w i t h s p o k e n w o r d s a n d pictures
h i n d e r s l e a r n i n g . Carefully selected w o r d s or
short phrases, however, a u g m e n t retention
(Mayer & J o h n s o n , 2 0 0 8 )

Spatial C o n t i g u i t y Principle On-screen t e x t and pictures should be

p r e s e n t e d i n close p r o x i m i t y t o o n e a n o t h e r
t o limit eye shifting d u r i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l
presentations

T e m p o r a l C o n t i g u i t y Principle Pictures a n d t e x t s h o w n o n screen should

correspond to the audio presentation

Manage M o d a l i t y Principle People learn better from spoken words and

Essential p i c t u r e s t h a n t h e y d o f r o m pictures a n d t e x t
Processing alone

S e g m e n t i n g Principle People learn better w h e n multimedia

p r e s e n t a t i o n s are divided i n t o s h o r t bursts ( 5 - 7
m i n u t e s ) as o p p o s e d t o l o n g e r m o d u l e s

P r e t r a i n i n g Principle Instructional messages should contain some

sort of o r i e n t i n g m e s s a g e t o i n t r o d u c e t h e
forthcoming content

Foster M u l t i m e d i a Principle People l e a r n b e t t e r f r o m pictures a n d spoken

Generative words t h a n from words alone
Processing
Personalization, Voice, and N a r r a t i o n p r e s e n t e d in a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l style
I m a g e Principles results in b e t t e r e n g a g e m e n t a n d l e a r n i n g t h a n
m o r e formal audio presentations

A d a p t e d f r o m " U s i n g e n h a n c e d p o d c a s t s t o a u g m e n t l i m i t e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l t i m e i n t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n , " b y M . J . K e n n e d y , J . E . H a r t , & R. O .

K e l l e m s ( i n p r e s s ) . Teacher Education and Special Education. C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 0 b y Sage. U s e d w i t h p e r m i s s i o n .

Learning Disability Quarterly 294

or altogether ineffective if they are not produced with teaching repertoires that work for literacy learning.
the individualized cognitive needs of the target learner Evidence-based practices for literacy instruction (e.g.,
in mind (Mayer, 2009). As professionals design multi­ Torgesen et al., 2007) and instructional design frame­
media instructional materials that explicitly address works (e.g., TPACK, UDL; Mayer's CTML) can guide
learning demands presented by text or content, Mayer's construction of homegrown technology-based prac­
CTML and accompanying instructional design princi­ tices and interventions that empower the hands-on
ples may be a pathway to ensure the look and sound learning of students with LD.
of materials adhere to the theoretical principles of mul­
timedia learning and the cognitive learning needs of RECOMMENDATIONS
students with LD. Based on our review of the theoretical and empirical
literature germane to teaching literacy skills to students
Enzymatic Theory of Education with LD in a tiered instructional system, we propose
Fox's (1983) enzymatic theory of education (ETE) three recommendations for practitioners. Following
completes our conceptual framework and vision for use the recommendations is an analysis of how practition­
of multimedia instruction to promote literacy skills ers can embed each of the recommendations within an
among students with LD. A student-centered learning RTI framework.
theory (Larsen, 1995), the ETE is a logical match given
the other elements of our conceptual framework (e.g., Recommendation 1
deictic nature of literacy, TPACK, and the CTML). The Select or design multimedia materials for use in liter­
ETE holds that students with LD need instruction that acy instruction that (a) logically extend existing peda­
facilitates, enhances, and accelerates cognitive pro­ gogy; and (b) explicitly help students build skills
cesses and overall motivation (Fox, 1 9 8 3 ; Larsen, necessary for literacy-related success, including meet­
1995). In this model, students are encouraged and ing individual needs, along with demands of local and
expected to be catalysts in their own learning, as state standards (Koehler & Mishra, 2005).
opposed to being passive recipients of information. Recommendation 2
To provide instruction in line with the ETE, practi­ Design or select multimedia materials that limit
tioners must select or design instructional materials extraneous processing, manage essential processing,
that are grounded in theory and are a logical match for and foster active learning through micromanagement
the demands of the intended audience. To create of literally every image and sound that is presented to
instruction with technology that is of use for students students during multimedia instruction (DeLeeuw &
with LD, therefore, it is necessary to consider all aspects Mayer, 2008; Mayer, 2009).
of a computer program, including dimensions of Recommendation 3
graphics, text, feedback types, motivation, and learner Incorporate validated theories of learning into multi­
control (Larsen, 1995). media-based literacy instruction (Kelly et al., 1 9 8 6 ;
Mayer's CTML and accompanying instructional Kelly et al., 1990). However, (a) shape instruction to
design principles are a logical method for authoring reflect the discipline- or task-specific literacy demands
multimedia instruction that facilitates learning among of the subject matter being learned, and (b) ensure mul­
students with LD. Educators who develop their teach­ timedia instruction adheres to the instructional design
ing repertoire within a TPACK framework and consis­ principles of Mayer's CTML.
tently create multimedia instructional materials that
RTI Implications: Recommendation 1
adhere to theory-based instructional design and learn­
Recommendation 1 is intended to build on the theo­
ing principles will find students who are more engaged
retical construct of TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2005) to
and successful in their literacy and overall learning.
guide practitioners away from conceptualizing the var­
The ETE is an essential piece of instruction occurring
ious tiers as places, and instead select evidence-based
within RTI frameworks, especially for struggling and
interventions necessary for helping students augment
frustrated students at tiers 2 and 3.
overall literacy capacity. The core of this recommenda­
Summary of Conceptual Framework tion is that practitioners must take time to reflect on
Teaching students with LD - at any level or in any (a) the demands of the curriculum, (b) existing EBPs for
content area - is a complex task for any educator. This providing instruction, (c) the needs of individual stu­
complexity is sustained and perpetuated, at least in part, dents, and (d) opportunities to incorporate a logical
by the deictic nature of technology and literacy (Leu, and powerful form of instructional technology into
2000). Fortunately, educators have the capacity to be instruction.
guided by theoretical principles for instructional design A critical element of TPACK is that technology inte­
and can look to empirical research to bolster existing gration is not an afterthought in the process, but is

Volume 33, Fall 2010 295

embedded in planning and reflection across all instruc­ RTI Implications: Recommendation 3
tional planning and design. For students with LD who The purpose of the enzymatic theory of education
need explicit instruction that may occur in tiers 2 or 3, is to promote an active learning environment for
technology can influence or augment existing students. In many schools, instruction at tiers 2 and
approaches to skill remediation (McKenna & Walpole, 3 is very repetitive and dull. While, by nature, remedial
2007). Numerous technology-based stand-alone pro­ reading instruction is not an exciting activity, for
grams or individual interventions provide targeted lit­ students with LD, it is one of the most important
eracy instruction to students who need sound- or word- activities they will participate in during school
level instruction (e.g., Read 180, supported eText). (Torgesen & Barker, 1995). Therefore, practitioners
However, matching individualized student needs with must find ways to make instruction relevant to stu­
technology-based interventions is not an automatic dents regardless of the topics or skills being taught.
process. Technology is one strategy that can assist in this criti­
In summary, educators should provide explicit liter­ cal endeavor.
acy instruction to students who need it; however, sim­ Using Mayer's design principles only accomplishes
ply plugging children into a computer terminal half of the goal with respect to effective design of mul­
installed with a stand-alone reading program without timedia instructional literacy materials. The best tech­
explicit consideration of how the technology-based nology in the world cannot compensate for a poorly
solutions logically fits within the overall scope of the designed and executed lesson. For students with LD in
child's development is not advised. intensive literacy learning situations, the practitioner
must be knowledgeable, skilled, and ready with a menu
RTI Implications: Recommendation 2
of evidence-based practices to support learning. As
A common misconception regarding use of technol­
noted, technology-based solutions created with specific
ogy is that it is effective regardless of the theoretical
design properties and that fit logically within the scope
and pedagological principles that went into (or did not
of a curriculum can be recommended for use (Kelly et
go into) authoring the software or intervention (Boone
al., 1990). However, instruction should still be engaging
& Higgins, 2007). Recommendation 2, based on the
and relevant to learners to the extent practical given the
cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML;
type of instruction.
Mayer, 2009), is intended to guide practitioners in their
design of multimedia instructional materials for use in Finally, educators should examine existing evidence-
any instructional setting with students. When it comes based practices and programs for improving literacy
to instructional design, with or without the use of tech­ outcomes for students with LD in search of opportuni­
nology, educators at every level should carefully con­ ties to infuse technology into existing practice. We do
sider the ease with which students' working memories not recommend that practitioners make haphazard
and capacity for cognitive load can be overwhelmed changes to existing practices or curricula. Instead,
(Chandler & Sweller, 1991; Mayer, 2009). Careful con­ numerous opportunities exist to conduct action re­
sideration of limited cognitive capacity and propensity search projects where careful data are taken regarding
for overload is even more critical when planning liter­ student performance and response to technology-
acy instruction for students with LD. infused instruction.
Mayer's instructional design principles (see Table 1) The Research We Need
do not constitute a step-by-step roadmap for instruc­ In conclusion, we pose three lingering questions to be
tional design, but may be thought of as a "construction addressed by researchers and teacher educators in the
checklist" of essential features that the construction field of technology-based literacy learning for students
site foreman checks off as he or she oversees the com­ with LD:
binations of materials (e.g., steel, wood, pipes, wires) 1. What are the barriers and professional develop­
being assembled within a new structure. Mayer's frame­ ment considerations regarding providing effective
work is content-neutral, in that it is useful for guiding multimedia literacy instruction at tiers 1, 2, and 3
instructional design of content or practices from a wide to students with LD?
variety of disciplines. With that in mind, the CTML 2. What are the implications for teacher education in
and accompanying design features help practitioners terms of preparing teacher candidates to build
ensure that the look and sound of the instruction are teaching frameworks that include TPACK and
appropriate in terms of limiting extraneous processing, other IT practices?
fostering the processes in working memory, and man­ 3. Under which learning scenarios (grade level, con­
aging active learning. These guidelines are applicable to tent area, instructional setting) is multimedia liter­
the design of instruction at tiers 1, 2, or 3. acy instruction most effective? What theoretical

Learning Disability Quarterly 296

 grounding and evidence-based instructional prac­ Kennedy, M. J . , Hart, J . E., & Kellems, R. O. (in press). Using
tices were used in the most effective experiments? enhanced podcasts to augment limited instructional time in
teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education.
As noted by numerous other researchers, more empir­
Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Klingner, J . , Woodruff, A. L., Reutebuch, C.
ical research is needed related to multimedia literacy K., & Kouzekanani, K. ( 2 0 0 6 ) . Improving the reading compre­
learning for students with LD. hension of middle school students with disabilities through
computer-assisted collaborative strategic reading. Remedial and
Special Education, 27(4) 2 3 5 - 2 4 9 .
REFERENCES
King-Sears, M. E., & Evmenova, A. S. ( 2 0 0 7 ) . Premises, principles,
Anderson-Inman, L. ( 2 0 0 9 ) . Supported eText: Literacy scaffolding
and processes for integrating TECHnology into instruction.
for students with disabilities, journal of Special Education
Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(1), 6 - 1 4 .
Technology, 24(3), 1-7.
Anderson-Inman, L., & H o m e y , M. A. ( 2 0 0 7 ) . Supported eText: Klingner, J . K., Urbach, J., Golos, D., Brownell, M., & Menon, S.
Assistive t e c h n o l o g y t h r o u g h t e x t transformations. Reading ( 2 0 1 0 ) . Teaching reading in the 2 1 s t century: A glimpse at h o w
Research Quarterly, 42(1), 1 5 3 - 1 6 0 . special education teachers p r o m o t e reading comprehension.
Boone, R., & Higgins, K. ( 2 0 0 7 ) . The role of instructional design Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(2), 5 9 - 7 4 .
in assistive t e c h n o l o g y research a n d d e v e l o p m e n t . Reading Klingner, J . K., & Vaughn, S. ( 1 9 9 6 ) . Reciprocal teaching of read­
Research Quarterly, 42(1), 1 3 5 - 1 4 0 . ing comprehension strategies for students with learning dis­
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J . ( 1 9 9 1 ) . Cognitive load theory a n d t h e abilities w h o use English as a second language. Elementary
format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 2 9 3 - 3 3 2 . School Journal, 96, 2 7 5 - 2 9 3 .
The Cognition a n d T e c h n o l o g y Group at Vanderbilt. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . Koehler, M. J . , & Mishra, P. ( 2 0 0 5 ) . W h a t happens w h e n teachers
Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. design educational technology? The development of techno­
Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2 - 1 0 . logical pedagological c o n t e n t knowledge. Journal of Educational
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C , & Leu, D. J. ( 2 0 0 8 ) . Handbook Computing Research, 32(2), 1 3 1 - 1 5 2 .
of research on new literacies. New York: L a w r e n c e Erlbaum Larsen, S. ( 1 9 9 5 ) . W h a t is "quality" in the use of technology for
Associates. children with learning disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly,
DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. ( 2 0 0 8 ) . A comparison of three meas­ 18, 1 1 8 - 1 3 0 .
ures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrin­ Leu, D. J . ( 2 0 0 0 ) . Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences
sic, extraneous, a n d g e r m a n e load, journal of Educational for literacy education in a n information age. In M. L. Kamil, P.
Psychology, 100, 2 2 3 - 2 3 4 . B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of read­
Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J . B. ( 2 0 0 6 ) . Teaching adolescents with ing research (Vol III, pp. 7 4 3 - 7 7 0 ) . New York: Routledge.
disabilities-Accessing the general education curriculum. Thousand Maccini, P., Gagnon, J . C , & Hughes, C. A. ( 2 0 0 2 ) . Technology-
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. based practices for secondary students with learning disabili­
Edyburn, D. L. ( 2 0 0 3 ) . Learning from t e x t . Special Education ties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 2 4 7 - 2 6 1 .
Technology Practice, 5 ( 2 ) , 16-27. Mayer, R. E. ( 2 0 0 9 ) . Multimedia learning ( 2 n d ed.). New York:
Edyburn, D. ( 2 0 0 6 ) . Cognitive prostheses for students with mild Cambridge University Press.
disabilities: Is this what assistive technology looks like? Journal McKenna, M. C , & Walpole, S. ( 2 0 0 7 ) . Assistive technology in the
of Special Education Technology, 21(4), 6 2 - 6 5 . reading clinic: Its e m e r g i n g p o t e n t i a l . Reading Research
Edyburn, D. L. ( 2 0 0 7 ) . Technology-enhanced reading perform­ Quarterly, 42(1), 1 4 0 - 1 4 5 .
ance: Defining a research agenda. Reading Research Quarterly, McKenna, M. C , & Proctor, K. M. ( 2 0 0 6 ) . The role of technology
42(1), 146-152.
in the professional development of literacy educators. In M. C.
Fox, D. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Personal theories of teaching. Studies in Higher
McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.),
Education, 8, 1 5 1 - 1 6 3 .
International handbook of literacy and technology (Vol II, pp. 2 7 3 -
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. ( 2 0 0 5 ) . Students with learning disabil­
2 8 6 ) . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
ities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies.
Moje, E. B. ( 2 0 0 7 ) . Developing socially just subject-matter instruc­
In: L.H Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds). Handbook of
tion: A review of the literature o n disciplinary literacy teaching.
learning disabilities (pp. 3 2 3 - 3 4 4 ) . New York: Guilford.
Review of Research in Education, 3(1), 1-44.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Kohler, M. ( 2 0 0 9 ) . Teachers' technological
Okolo, C. M., & Bouck, E. C. ( 2 0 0 7 ) . Research about assistive tech­
pedagological knowledge a n d learning activity types:
Curriculum-based technology integration retrained. Journal of nology: 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 6 . W h a t have we learned? Journal of Special
Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 3 9 3 - 4 1 6 . Education Technology, 22(3), 1 9 - 3 3 .
J o h n s o n , E. S., H u m p h r e y , M., Mellard, D. F., W o o d s , K., & Paivio, A. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Mental representations: A dual coding approach.
Swanson, H. L. ( 2 0 1 0 ) . Cognitive processing deficits and stu­ Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
dents with specific learning disabilities: A selective meta analy­ Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Berkeley, S., & Graetz, J . E. (in
sis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 3 - 1 8 . press). Do special education interventions improve learning of
Kamil, M. L. ( 2 0 0 3 ) . Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st secondary c o n t e n t ? Remedial and Special Education.
century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Shulman, L. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the
Kelly, B., Carnine, D., Gersten, R., & Grossen, B. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . The effec­ new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 5 7 ( 1 ) , 1-22.
tiveness of videodisc instruction in teaching fractions to learn­ Swanson, H. L. ( 2 0 0 1 ) . Research o n interventions for adolescents
ing-disabled and remedial high school students. Journal of with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related
Special Education Technology, 8, 5-17. t o higher-order processing. The Elementary School Journal,
Kelly, B., Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . Student error patterns 101(3), 3 3 1 - 3 4 8 .
as a function of curriculum design: Teaching fractions to reme­ Torgesen, J . K., & Barker, T. A. ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Computers as aids in the
dial high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of prevention and remediation of reading disabilities. Learning
Learning Disabilities, 23, 2 3 - 2 9 . Disability Quarterly, 18, 7 6 - 8 7 .

Volume Fall 2010 297

Torgesen, J . K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., www.nlts2.org/reports/2005_06/nlts2_report_2005_06_complet
Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J . , Frances, D. J . , Rivera, M. O., e.pdf.
& Lesaux, N. ( 2 0 0 7 ) . Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: Xin, J. F., & Rieth, H. ( 2 0 0 1 ) . Video-assisted vocabulary instruction
A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Portsmouth, for e l e m e n t a r y school students with learning disabilities.
NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center o n Instruction. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 8 7 - 1 0 3 .
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P. ( 2 0 0 5 ) . Changes
over time in the early postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. Please address correspondence concerning this article to: Michael
A report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Kennedy, University of Kansas, Department of Special Education,
Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 1 1 2 2 W . Campus Road, R o o m 5 2 2 , Lawrence, KS 6 6 0 4 5 ; e-mail:
(NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Available at [email protected].

Learning Disability Quarterly 298