You are here:

Washington State University Technology Resource Database: Identifying Effective Designs for Students with Dyslexia
PROCEEDINGS

, Washington State University, United States

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Vienna, Austria ISBN 978-1-880094-65-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

A majority of classroom teachers are unprepared to utilize technology as a means to enhance learning opportunities for students with dyslexia. There are two primary reasons for this: 1) there are a lack of resources that aid teachers in the selection, implementation and assessment of e-learning products, and 2) there is a lack of research identifying which e-learning products and associated technology-based tools are most efficacious for students’ with dyslexia. The goal of the Washington State University Technology Resource Database is to develop an internet-based e-learning resource for teachers, administrators, and researchers that will provide unbiased, peer-reviewed information about the types of e-learning products that are most efficacious for students with dyslexia. The database is composed of three linked interfaces: 1) an online e-learning assessment survey, 2) a database comprised of the survey responses, and 3) a search engine that provides access to information in the database.

Citation

Marino, M. (2008). Washington State University Technology Resource Database: Identifying Effective Designs for Students with Dyslexia. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2008--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 1302-1306). Vienna, Austria: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 13, 2024 from .

© 2008 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Bender, W.N. (2001). Learning disabilities: Characteristics, identification, and teaching strategies (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  2. Boone, R. & Higgins, K. (2007). The role of instructional design in assistive technology research and development. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 135-159.
  3. Bryant, D.P. (2003). Promoting effective instruction for struggling secondary students: Introduction to the special issue. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 70-71.
  4. De La Paz, S., & MacArthur, C. (2003). Knowing the how and why of history: Expectations for students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 142-154.
  5. Edyburn, D.L. (2007). Technology-enhanced reading performance: Defining a research agenda. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 146-152.
  6. Ferretti, R.P., & Okolo, C.M. (1996). Authenticity in learning: Multimedia design projects in social studies for students with disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 450-460.
  7. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Kazdan, S. (1999). Effects of peer assisted learning strategies on high school students with serious reading problems. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 309-318.
  8. Gardner, J.E., & Wissick, C.A. (2002). Enhancing thematic units using the worldwide web: Tools and strategies that integrate technology for students with mild disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17, 27-38.
  9. Gardner, J.E., Wissick, C.A., Schweder, W., & Canter, L.S. (2003). Enhancing interdisciplinary instruction in general and special education: Thematic units and technology. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 161-172.
  10. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Williams, J.P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-320.
  11. Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to the general curriculum: Universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 8-17.
  12. Horney, M.A., & Anderson-Inman, L. (1999). Supported text in electronic reading environments. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 127-168.
  13. Iiyoshi, T., & Hannafin, M. (2002). Cognitive tools and user-centered learning environments: Rethinking tools, functions and applications. Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 831-836.
  14. Jonassen, D.H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  15. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J.E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 522-549.
  16. Kirschner, P.A., & Erkens, G. (2006). Cognitive tools and mindtools for collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 199-209.
  17. Lajoie, S.P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S.P. Lajoie and S.J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as Cognitive Tools (pp.261-288). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  18. Land, S. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 21-78.
  19. Liu, M. (2004). Examining the Performance and Attitudes of Sixth Graders During Their Use of A Problem-Based Hypermedia Learning Environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 357-379.
  20. Liu, M, & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 5-21.
  21. MacArthur, C.A., Ferretti, R.P., Okolo, C.M., & Cavalier, A.R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 273-301.
  22. Maccini, P., Gagnon, J.C. & Hughes, C.A. (2002). Technology-based practices for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 247-261.
  23. Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E. & Graetz, J.E. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103-116.
  24. Mayer, R.E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-139.
  25. McGuire, J., Scott, S., & Shaw, S. (2006). Universal design for learning and its applications in educational environments. Remedial and Special Education, 27(3), 166-175.
  26. McKenna, M.C., Reinking, D., Labbo, L.D., & Kieffer, R.D. (1999). The electronic transformation of literacy and its implications for the struggling reader. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 111-126.
  27. Morocco, C.C., Hindin, A., Mata-Aguilar, C., & Clark-Chiarelli, N. (2001). Building a deep understanding of literature with middle-grade students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 47-57.
  28. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Retrieved April 9, 2003, from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm
  29. Rose, D.E., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (2005) The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
  30. Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2004). Reading disability and the brain. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 7-11.
  31. Smith, T.J., Dittmer, K.I., & Skinner, C.H. (2002). Enhancing science performance in students with learning disabilities using cover, copy, and compare: A student shows the way. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 417-426.
  32. Swanson, L.H. (2001). Research on interventions for adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related to higher-order processing. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 331-378.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References