Content uploaded by Lucille A. Zeph
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lucille A. Zeph on Aug 13, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://rse.sagepub.com/
Remedial and Special Education
http://rse.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/08/30/0741932510381651
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0741932510381651
published online 31 August 2010Remedial and Special Education
Peggy Coyne, Bart Pisha, Bridget Dalton, Lucille A. Zeph and Nancy Cook Smith
Disabilities
Literacy by Design: A Universal Design for Learning Approach for Students With Significant Intellectual
Published by:
Hammill Institute on Disabilities
and
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Remedial and Special EducationAdditional services and information for
http://rse.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://rse.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
at BOSTON COLLEGE on September 24, 2010rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Article
Remedial and Special Education
XX(X) 1 –11
© 2010 Hammill Institute on Disabilities
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0741932510381651
http://rase.sagepub.com
Literacy by Design: A Universal Design
for Learning Approach for Students
With Significant Intellectual Disabilities
Peggy Coyne
1
, Bart Pisha
1
, Bridget Dalton
2
,
Lucille A. Zeph
3
, and Nancy Cook Smith
4
Abstract
Literacy instruction for students with significant intellectual disabilities traditionally emphasizes isolated skills instruction focusing
on sight words and basic vocabulary. Recent research suggests these students benefit from high-quality instruction that includes
comprehension and storybook reading. This study examined the effect of a technology-based universal design for learning
(UDL) approach to literacy instruction, Literacy by Design (LBD), on the reading achievement of 16 students with significant
intellectual disabilities in Grades K–2. The LBD approach emphasizes reading for meaning, combining UDL-scaffolded e-books
and letter and word recognition software. Nine teachers received training in research-based literacy practices. Of these, five
received LBD training and implemented it four to five times weekly. Controlling for initial reading achievement, the LBD group
made significantly greater gains on the Woodcock–Johnson Test of Achievement III Passage Comprehension subtest. Implications
for research and practice in beginning reading instruction for children with significant intellectual disabilities are discussed.
Keywords
literacy, mental retardation, universal design for learning, technology
The reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act (1997, 2004) and the passage of No Child Left
Behind (2002) signaled a more expansive and potentially
liberating view of literacy and learning for students with
significant intellectual disabilities—one that would promote
participation and progress in the general education curriculum
(Jackson, 2005). As the report of the President’s Commission
on Excellence in Special Education (PCESE, 2002) states,
“Leaving no child behind . . . means leaving no children
with disabilities behind” (p. 42).
Achieving the goal of improved literacy achievement for
students with significant intellectual disabilities has remained
elusive. Despite the critical role of literacy in the curriculum,
many students with significant intellectual disabilities have
limited opportunities for effective literacy acquisition
because of the poor quality or absence of literacy instruction,
often combined with educators’ low academic expectations
(Erickson, Hanser, Hatch, & Sanders, 2009; Katims, 2000;
Kliewer & Biklen, 2001). For the current study, we developed
and field tested the Literacy by Design (LBD) instructional
approach and accompanying multimedia e-books to learn
whether young students with significant intellectual dis-
abilities would benefit from a technology-based universal
design for learning (UDL) approach to literacy instruction.
The e-books embed supports in each of the five areas of
instruction identified by the National Reading Panel (NRP,
2000) report as critical for successful, balanced literacy
instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency,
and comprehension.
Traditional Instruction for Students
With Significant Intellectual Disabilities
Literacy instruction for students with significant intellectual
disabilities has traditionally focused on drill and practice
instruction of sight words and other basic literacy skills in iso-
lated contexts (Erickson & Koppenhaver, 1995; Katims, 2000),
with little consideration given to balanced literacy instruction
(Al Otaiba & Hosp, 2004). Attention to more difficult and
complex literacy tasks is lacking (McLaughlin, 1999), with
1
CAST, Wakefield, MA, USA
2
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
3
University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA
4
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Peggy Coyne, CAST, 40 Harvard Mills Square, Suite 3, Wakefield, MA 01881
Email: pcoyne@cast.org
Remedial and Special Education OnlineFirst, published on August 31, 2010 as doi:10.1177/0741932510381651
at BOSTON COLLEGE on September 24, 2010rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
2 Remedial and Special Education XX(X)
limited focus on reading for meaning, a core process, and
literacy outcome. As a result, students with significant
intellectual disabilities fall increasingly behind in literacy
(PCESE, 2002).
This narrow focus in literacy instruction is in part because
of the gap in our knowledge base on effective reading instruc-
tion for individuals with significant intellectual disabilities,
with much of the research focusing on word recognition and
functional literacy. Al Otaiba and Hosp’s (2004) review of
the literature revealed several studies on effective instruction
for sight word retention, phonemic decoding, and phonologi-
cal awareness and one study that supported the integration
of phonics and basal reading instruction. However, they found
no studies that investigated fluency, vocabulary, or reading
comprehension, indicating the lack of knowledge regarding
how to instruct students with significant intellectual dis-
abilities in these more complex areas of literacy.
In a second review, Houston and Torgesen (2004) exam-
ined studies of reading instruction for students with moderate
intellectual disabilities in relation to the five areas of read-
ing instruction identified by the NRP (2000). They con-
cluded that there is an “absence of clear direction about the
exact sequence and methods for teaching these students” (p. 6).
However, there was some support for explicit comprehension
instruction, especially when oral language and reading com-
prehension were both addressed. Browder, Wakeman,
Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Algozzine (2006) similarly
applied the NRP (2000) framework to analyze 128 studies
on teaching reading to students with moderate to severe intel-
lectual disabilities. This comprehensive analysis revealed
that the vast majority of studies examined only one or two
areas of literacy instruction and that more than two thirds
of the studies examined the teaching of sight words with an
emphasis on functional words. Browder et al. found “insuf-
ficient studies to glean evidence-based practices for phonics
and phonemic awareness” (p. 399), and although fluency
was measured, appropriate teaching methodologies to pro-
mote it were rarely described or implemented. Studies related
to vocabulary instruction represented the largest body of
research, but these studies primarily addressed sight word
acquisition as an indicator of vocabulary development. Just
31 studies addressed reading comprehension, with the major-
ity focusing on comprehension of functional activities and
word-to-picture matching. Browder et al. recommended addi-
tional research to address the seven other comprehension
strategies identified by the NRP, such as story structure,
summarizing, and graphic organizers. They concluded that
the current body of research informs educators on how to
teach sight vocabulary but provides no guidance for other
areas of literacy instruction defined by the NRP (2000).
Erickson and her colleagues (2009) also identified a lack
of research-based practices in these five areas, especially
in the area of comprehension.
Promising Approaches in Literacy Instruction for
Students With Significant Intellectual Disabilities
Although relatively little research has examined comprehen-
sive reading approaches for students with significant intel-
lectual disabilities, findings suggest that these students can
benefit from high-quality, balanced literacy instruction and,
in some cases, the same research-based instructional approaches
found for typical learners (Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell,
Courtade, Gibbs, & Flowers, 2008; Hedrick, Katims, & Carr,
1999). For example, researchers report that students with
significant intellectual disabilities may profit from literacy
instruction that focuses on reading for meaning, provides
direct instruction in the skills and strategies needed to decode
and understand, and uses appealing print in meaningful con-
texts (Katims, 2000; Mefferd & Pettegrew, 1997). Moreover,
like their peers without disabilities, students with significant
intellectual disabilities are engaged by reading storybooks and
benefit from reading and discussing books with their teachers
and peers (Koppenhaver, Coleman, Kalman, & Yoder, 1991;
Skotko, Koppenhaver, & Erickson, 2004). Researchers are
beginning to apply this new knowledge in the development
of comprehensive approaches to literacy for these students
(Browder, Gibbs, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade, & Lee, 2007).
Programs such as Erickson’s (2004) MEville to WEville also
integrate technology to provide students with engaging and
beneficial learning environments for reading and writing.
UDL
A potentially promising approach to enabling more students
with significant intellectual disabilities to gain access to
research-based, balanced literacy approaches is through the
integration of UDL and technology to create more supportive
and accessible learning environments. UDL applies recent
advances in the understanding of how the brain processes
information to the design of texts and curricula that can be
flexible enough to meet individual student needs (Rose &
Meyer, 2002). UDL provides a framework for the design of
learning environments that scaffold and provide (a) multiple
ways to access information and knowledge (the “what” of
learning), (b) multiple ways to approach strategic tasks (the
“how” of learning), and (c) multiple ways of becoming and
staying engaged in learning (the “why” of learning; Meyer &
Rose, 1998, 2005; Rose & Meyer, 2002). UDL aims to decrease
potential barriers to learning while increasing opportunities
to learn. It rests on a belief that designing for diverse learners
results in better learning outcomes for all individuals.
Scaffolding is a core feature of UDL. In their seminal work,
Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) defined scaffolding as being
situated within a social context whereby the tutor “enables a
child or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task, or achieve
a goal that would be beyond his unassisted efforts” (p. 90).
at BOSTON COLLEGE on September 24, 2010rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Coyne et al. 3
Scaffolding is a balance between obtaining and maintaining
a child’s engagement, simplifying the task when needed,
providing confidence for risk taking, marking relevant infor-
mation, and demonstrating potential solutions. It plays an
important role in literacy development, as teachers consciously
provide and withdraw specific supports to maximize student
learning. This involves a complex balance among knowledge
of a student’s learning strengths and weaknesses, knowledge
of the curriculum demands, and understanding of the means
to successfully challenge and withdraw scaffolds as a student
progresses (Almasi, 2003; Berk & Winsler, 1995).
There is a growing body of research on the ways in which
technology can be used to provide scaffolds directly within
digital text to support reading (for reviews, see MacArthur,
Ferretti, Okolo, & Cavalier, 2001; Strangman & Dalton, 2005).
Digital text can provide an apprenticeship environment to
guide students in actively constructing meaning through mod-
eling and demonstration, reading with feedback and practice,
and use of leveled scaffolds that change and gradually fade
with increasing student expertise (Cognition and Technology
Group at Vanderbilt, 1993; Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989).
Research on UDL has focused on integrating technology
and media with sound instructional strategies and curricula
to create customized scaffolded learning experiences for
students with diverse needs (Dalton & Proctor, 2007; Pisha
& Coyne, 2001; Wehmeyer, Smith, Palmer, Davies, & Stock,
2004). Support for applying UDL principles to the design of
digital literacy environments is found in research on e-books
with embedded supports for reading comprehension strategies
(Dalton, Pisha, Coyne, Eagleton, & Deysher, 2002), reading
strategies combined with interactive vocabulary (Proctor,
Dalton, & Grisham, 2007; Proctor, Uccelli, Dalton, & Snow,
2009), and reading strategies combined with progress moni-
toring (Hall & Murray, 2009). However, most of the research
to date has been conducted with typically achieving and strug-
gling readers in the middle grades. Adapting the UDL e-book
framework for young children with significant intellectual
disabilities, Dalton and Coyne (2002) formatively developed
an e-book prototype. Students were highly engaged by the
e-books and were able to navigate the interface and use the
various supports; however, this study did not assess the effect
on reading achievement.
To address this gap in theory and research on UDL, the
current study investigated the effect of LBD, a universally
designed approach to literacy instruction that addresses the
five components of balanced literacy recommended by the
NRP (2000), on the reading achievement of young students
with intellectual disabilities. The guiding research question
was, for children in Grades K–2 with significant intellectual
disabilities, what effect does a UDL technology-based reading
approach (LBD) versus traditional reading instruction have
on students’ reading comprehension, fluency, phonemic
awareness, phonics, and vocabulary development?
Method
Participants
Teachers and setting. Nine teachers of K–2 students with
significant intellectual disabilities, in both inclusive and sub-
stantially separate classrooms, volunteered to participate in
this research. To guide our selection, we visited each school,
met with teachers, specialists, and principals, and observed
students during class instruction. Since the intervention was
designed to influence the class and overall instructional
approach, student participation in the intervention was based
on teacher assignment. There were five intervention and four
control classrooms in five schools located in two New England
states. Our assignment was purposeful to balance instructional
setting (inclusive and substantially separate classrooms) and
location (States 1 and 2). State 1 included two classrooms
(one intervention and one control) located in a substantially
separate suburban school building and two substantially sepa-
rate classrooms (one intervention and one control) in an urban
elementary school. State 2 included five inclusive classrooms
located in five rural elementary schools (three intervention
and two control).
Students. Once teachers were identified, 23 student par-
ticipants were selected based on the school’s determina-
tion that students met two criteria: (a) they were reported to
have demonstrated significantly subaverage intellectual
functioning and deficits in two or more adaptive skills areas
(Luckasson et al., 1992) and (b) they received reading instruc-
tion in one of the identified classrooms. We relied on each
school’s determination of intellectual level; IQ scores were
not available for any of these students. In each case, the
examiner indicated in the child’s record that it would not
be appropriate to administer an IQ test. We did not conduct
follow-up testing.
From October to May, we collected complete data sets
from 16 students who relied on spoken English for commu-
nication. We were not able to obtain baseline scores on the
pre-post quantitative measures for the 6 students identified
as nonverbal. This article reports on the quantitative findings
for the 16 students who were able to communicate verbally.
Qualitative case studies of the children who are nonverbal
may be found in Dalton, Zeph, Coyne, and Enright (2006).
Of the 16 students, 8 were in the LBD classroom and 8
in the control classroom (see Table 1). One control and one
intervention classroom had a single participating student; all
other classrooms had 2 or 3 participating students. Students’
primary diagnoses in both conditions varied and included
multiple disabilities, developmental disability, autism, Prader–
Willi syndrome, Down syndrome, Fragile X, and pervasive
developmental disability. Many students had various physical
disabilities, and the range of communication issues fre-
quently seen in individuals with significant intellectual dis-
abilities was also present.
at BOSTON COLLEGE on September 24, 2010rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
4 Remedial and Special Education XX(X)
LBD Materials
Drawing on the research-based UDL-thinking reader instruc-
tional framework (Dalton & Proctor, 2007) and pilot work
with children with intellectual disabilities (Dalton & Coyne,
2002; O’Neill & Dalton, 2002), we developed four universally
designed digital story books, including two animal fantasies,
one folktale, and one contemporary fiction. The primary focus
of these scaffolded e-books was comprehension, while also
addressing phonemic awareness, phonics instruction, vocabu-
lary, and fluency. The embedded supports are based on the
three principles of UDL, as described in Table 2.
Supports were leveled to provide appropriate levels of chal-
lenge and engagement and focused on developing beginning
reading skills in context. Figure 1 shows screenshots of the
two main activity areas of the LBD e-books, “Read and Under-
stand,” which focuses on comprehension and vocabulary,
and “Read Aloud,” which supports phonics and fluency.
In addition to the LBD e-books, students used two comple-
mentary software programs: WiggleWorks (1996) provided
a large library of e-books to supplement the LBD e-book
inventory, and Island Adventure (1997) and Ocean Adventure
(1997) provided a set of interactive exercises and games for
teaching phonemic awareness and phonics. The combination
of UDL scaffolded e-books, the WiggleWorks e-book library,
and letter and word recognition game software provided
access to a wide selection of materials that support teaching
of the five core reading areas in context (see Table 3).
Measures
At the beginning and end of the academic year we collected
pre- and posttest data on 11 quantitative reading and language
measures from 16 children with significant intellectual dis-
abilities who were able to communicate verbally. All assess-
ments were individually administered by researchers with
testing experience.
We assessed reading growth with the widely used
Woodco ck– John son Tests o f Ach ievement III (WJ-III;
Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001), including Letter-
Word ID, Understanding Directions, Passage Comprehen-
sion, Word Attack, Picture Vocabulary, Oral Comprehension,
and Sound Awareness. In addition, we calculated two
composite scores, Listening Comprehension (Understanding
Directions and Oral Comprehension) and Basic Reading
(Letter-Word ID and Word Attack). This measure is a
highly regarded and statistically robust standardized
assessment of reading achievement that yields interval-
level scale scores. In addition, we used two criterion-refer-
enced measures, Letter Identification, upper and lowercase
(Clay, 2000a), and Concepts About Print (Clay, 2000b), to
ascertain students’ alphabet and book knowledge. Students
earn a maximum raw score of 52 for letters recognized and
a raw score of 24 for various concepts about print, such as
identifying the front cover, pointing to a word within a
sentence, and so on. These measures were selected as they
address the components of a high-quality instructional
approach, such as reading for meaning, vocabulary, and
familiarity with book reading.
Training and Classroom Implementation
All teachers, control and intervention, attended an introduc-
tory all-day workshop on literacy best practices, including
evidence-based strategies for teaching the five areas identi-
fied by the NRP (2000), strategies used by proficient readers,
instructional practices such as think alouds, and strategies
for teaching students with significant intellectual disabilities.
The LBD teachers received an additional day of training on
how to teach with the three software packages (LBD e-books,
Scholastic WiggleWorks e-books, and Riverdeep’s Island
Adventure and Ocean Adventure). Teachers read and tried
out the various instructional supports within the LBD and
Scholastic e-books and played the letter-word games to
become familiar with the goals and operation of each pro-
gram. Then they planned for how they could be used peda-
gogically in their classrooms.
All students in the LBD and control classrooms partici-
pated in a 90-min literacy block from October through May.
As part of their total literacy program, LBD students received
20 to 30 min per day of context-based reading instruction
supported by the intervention software. Each LBD classroom
had one desktop computer, one pair of headphones, and one
microphone dedicated to the project. Researchers conducted
weekly observations of LBD teachers or their teaching assis-
tants during the time they taught LBD students. Technical
Table 1. Student Demographics
Characteristic
Literacy by
Design (n 8)
Control
(n 8)
n % n %
Race/ethnicity
European American 7 87.5 7 87.5
Hispanic 0 0.0 1 12.5
African American 1 12.5 0 0.0
Gender
Male 5 62.5 6 75.0
Female 3 37.5 2 25.0
Age
Average 7.1 7.8
Range 5.10–9.1 6.2–9.9
Classroom setting
Inclusive 3 37.5 3 37.5
Separate 3 37.5 1 12.5
Substantially separate 2 25.0 4 50.0
at BOSTON COLLEGE on September 24, 2010rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Coyne et al. 5
assistance and instructional support were provided as needed.
For example, teachers initially needed help with computer
troubleshooting (e.g., unfreezing a screen) and expanding
their instructional interactions to include the full range of
embedded LBD instructional supports (e.g., viewing the
“real-world” video to build prior knowledge, varying the
mode of student response). They all learned to use the soft-
ware with a high degree of comfort within several weeks and
conveyed during exit interviews their interest in continuing
to use the software beyond the end of the study.
Table 2. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Principles and Literacy by Design (LBD) E-book Features
UDL Principle LBD E-book Features
Multiple means of representation Sentence-by-sentence human digitized voice with synchronized highlighting
Word and phrase synthetic text to speech with synchronized highlighting
Animation and oral pronunciation of onset-rhyme for phonetically regular words
Hyperlinked glossary items with graphic and multimedia illustrations
Story illustration enhancements (e.g., click on a character to hear what the character
is thinking and feeling)
Videos and photo essays to build background information (e.g., hide-and-seek video,
photos of a trip to a bakery)
Multiple means of action and
expression
Prompts to apply reading comprehension strategies (e.g., predict, question, retell,
connect) and personal response (e.g., How is the character feeling?)
Pedagogical agents that provide prompts, think alouds, and models
Varied response options (e.g., visual multiple choice, sentence starters, open
responses typed or audio-recorded)
Prompts to echo read, partner read, and read independently guided by pedagogical
agents who demonstrate the process
Student work logs capture all written and audio-recorded responses
Multiple means of engagement Use of popular children’s stories with quality illustrations
Students are encouraged to decide when to click on a support option and are given
control of the mouse so that they are in charge of navigation
Students are encouraged to choose their response option (typed or audio-recorded)
Students listen to their oral reading recordings
Prompts to reflect on progress and identify what they like or don’t like
In addition to teacher-guided reading, students may elect to read stories independently
Figure 1. Literacy by Design reading scaffolds. The Read and Understand area focusing on comprehension is depicted on the left.
The Read Aloud area focusing on word recognition is on the right. Reprinted with permission of CAST, Inc.
at BOSTON COLLEGE on September 24, 2010rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
6 Remedial and Special Education XX(X)
To expand on the LBD instructional experience, a typical
session included time reading and interacting with an LBD
e-book, a WiggleWorks e-book, and the letter and word rec-
ognition software. Teachers and teacher assistants primarily
worked one on one with students when using the LBD
e-books. Teachers decided which components of the program
to use with which students. At the beginning of the interven-
tion, teachers modeled how to use the embedded supports and
guided students quite closely. Within 2 to 3 months, students
were observed navigating the program and inputting responses
independently, with the teacher or assistant sitting by their
side at the computer, focusing on expanding the students’
responses and making linkages to reading off the computer.
As the year progressed, teachers and assistants continued to
work one on one with students using the three software pro-
grams while also allowing students to read the LBD and
WiggleWorks e-books and to play the letter-word recognition
games independently. In the inclusive LBD classrooms, the
students became the classroom “experts” on the software,
often supporting typical peers who wished to use the software.
Observations demonstrated students’ eagerness to read the
storybooks and play games on the computer. Anecdotal
reports from teachers often focused on students’ engagement
with the software while also acknowledging the learning
benefit. As one teacher explained, “They’re interacting more,
they’re enjoying it, they’re having fun with it. And they’re
learning from it. They don’t realize. . . . They love to use the
software and don’t realize that they’re learning.”
The control teachers followed their “business as usual”
literacy program. Prior to joining the study, all of the teachers
reported that their curriculum and instruction addressed the
five areas of reading instruction identified in the NRP report.
Control teachers were observed once a month during their
literacy block. These observations confirmed that teachers
were addressing word-level skills, vocabulary, and com-
prehension, with some variation as to be expected. Students
received instruction individually and in small groups usually
including one other student. In the inclusive control sites,
students received their instruction in the general education
classroom, typically with the support of an educational
assistant.
Fidelity of Treatment
During October to May, researchers conducted weekly 45-min
observations of the LBD classrooms and monthly observations
of the control classrooms during literacy instruction. In addi-
tion to field notes, researchers recorded whether or not instruc-
tion in each of the five components of reading was observed
during the session (this was a yes–no determination; multiple
instances were not recorded). For example, in the LBD class-
rooms, if the student had worked in the Read and Understand
section of the LBD e-book, the observer checked yes that com-
prehension was addressed; if the student played a game in
Island Ocean Adventure, the instructional focus was phonics
or phonemic awareness, depending on the game. Similarly, if
control students were working on a vocabulary sheet, the
researcher would check yes for vocabulary; discussing the
meaning of a text would be counted as evidence of comprehen-
sion. In the control classrooms, if students were working with
a vocabulary worksheet, the observer coded yes on vocabulary;
if they were discussing a story event, the researcher coded
Table 3. Software Features That Support Beginning Reading
National Reading Panel (2000)
Areas of Reading Instruction
Universal Design for Learning E-books
(Researcher Designed)
WiggleWorks E-books
(Scholastic)
Island Adventure and Ocean
Adventure (Riverdeep)
Phonemic awareness Specific supports not embedded Specific supports not
embedded
Matching sounds, letter–
sounds games
Phonics “Read & Practice”: Click phonetically
regular words to animate onset-
rhyme and sound out blending;
digital voice narration
Digital letter magnet
board for combining
letters and using word
families to create words
Interactive activities and
books focused on sound
symbol matching, blending
Comprehension “Read & Understand”: Reading
strategy prompts with pedagogical
agents who provide hints and
models; visual multiple choice, type,
or audio-record open responses
Writing feature, “My
Book,” to type or
audio-record retelling of
story with or without
illustrations
Specific supports not
embedded
Fluency “Read and Practice”: Prompts to
echo-read, partner-read, or read
independently; pedagogical agents
provide models; audio-record oral
reading
WiggleWorks e-books are
designed to be listened
to and read along with;
students may audio-
record oral reading
Activities designed to
increase word recognition;
books provide audio
feedback; students
audio-record oral reading
Vocabulary Hyperlinked multimedia glossary,
“real-life” videos and photo essays
Specific supports not
embedded
Specific supports not
embedded
at BOSTON COLLEGE on September 24, 2010rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Coyne et al. 7
comprehension. On average, 43.8% of the observed LBD
sessions included phonemic awareness instruction, 37.5%
included phonics, 31.5% included fluency, 45.8% included
vocabulary, and 68.5% included comprehension. Observation
of the control classrooms indicated that 22.9% of the sessions
included phonemic awareness instruction, 44.3% included
phonics, 20.8% included fluency, 40.2% included vocabulary,
and 38.5% included comprehension. Although both interven-
tion and control classrooms included instruction in each of
the reading instruction areas, the largest difference in instruc-
tional focus was the greater emphasis on comprehension
and phonemic awareness in the LBD classrooms.
During the weekly visits, researchers checked in with the
LBD teachers regarding their software use. They self-reported
that they were using the software the required four to five times
per week. Although asked to complete a daily work log indi-
cating which software they had used, the reports were sporadic.
Based on the 233 work logs collected, teachers reported using
the LBD storybooks (36.1%), WiggleWorks (42.1%), and
Island and Ocean Adventure (24.4%), figures that are consis-
tent with the observations that indicated more use of the soft-
ware that focused on comprehension instruction.
Analysis
We chose an ANCOVA strategy for the analysis of these data
because univariate analysis and administration of Levine’s
test of students’ pretest scores indicated that the mean scores
of the intervention and control groups varied from each other
on some measures to an extent that might have been sufficient
to compromise a traditional ANOVA analysis. The LBD
group pretest scores were significantly higher than the control
group on the Letter-Word ID, t(14) 2.16, p .05, and Picture
Vo c a b u l a r y s u b t e s t s , t(14) 2.78, p .05. Huck (2000) notes
that ANCOVA adjusts each group mean on the dependent
variable, thereby minimizing the effect of these differences
and providing an appropriate alternative to ANOVA for this
analysis.
The dependent variables for these analyses were posttest
scores adjusted for pretest scores made by students on each
of our 11 quantitative measures. We compared posttest scores
of students in the LBD classrooms to posttest scores made by
students in the control classrooms where teachers were not
provided with LBD materials but continued to teach in their
customary ways. Pretests on standardized and nonstandard-
ized measures served as the covariates in these analyses.
We determined that ANCOVA was appropriate for the
analysis of these data because there was a statistical control
based on individual performance, specifically the pretest
scores for each dependent measure. Functionally, the residual
for each individual is calculated after a regression analysis
predicts all posttest scores on the basis of the degree of
covariance between the pretest and posttest scores. The use
of ANCOVA helped to minimize the effect of the relatively
large variation between individual students’ pretest scores
and facilitated comparisons between the intervention and the
control groups. The dependent variables in all analyses were
posttest scores that had been adjusted, via ANCOVA, for
pretest variance. Levine’s test of equality of variance was
employed prior to each ANCOVA to test the critical assump-
tion of inference statistics that the covariates were accept-
ably homogenous. When the variables were examined using
Levine’s test, no variable achieved statistical significance
at the p .05 level. This indicated that the assumption of
homogeneity of covariates was not violated.
Results: Multivariate Analysis
of Pre- and Posttest Scores
Table 4 presents pre- and posttest scores and shows the results
of ANCOVA analyses of students’ scaled scores on the WJ-III
subtests and composites and students’ raw scores on Concepts
About Print and Letter Identification. The latter instruments
do not yield “standardized” scores (i.e., an equal interval level
of measurement or consideration of norms with such scores
as normal curve equivalent or z scores) and are used here as
criterion-referenced measures of demonstrated learning.
The differences between adjusted posttest scores of the
LBD and control groups were statistically significant (in
favor of the LBD group) at the p .02 level on one subtest
of the WJ-III, Passage Comprehension. The effect size was
1.44. Other measures that had an effect size nearing or equal
to 1 included two subtests on the WJ-III, Word Attack (0.91)
and Listening Comprehension (1.00), and Concepts About
Print (0.92). Effect sizes were calculated by dividing the
coefficient for treatment by the root mean square error for
the model. This approach allows us to focus on the effect of
the treatment, controlling for pretest score.
Discussion
The results of the LBD project add to a small but growing body
of research demonstrating the potential value of comprehensive
literacy programs for children with significant intellectual dis-
abilities that address five core aspects of literacy—phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension
(Erickson et al., 2009). After controlling for initial reading
achievement, the LBD group, on average, made significantly
higher gains in comprehension than did the control group,
suggesting a strong effect of the intervention. Analysis of effect
sizes suggests LBD also had a strong effect on students’ Word
Attack skills, listening comprehension, and Concepts About
Print. However, these effects should be interpreted with caution,
given the small size of the sample.
Although it is not possible to tease out the effects of the
various components of the LBD approach, its design rests on
at BOSTON COLLEGE on September 24, 2010rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8 Remedial and Special Education XX(X)
Rose and Meyer’s (2002) three principles of UDL. LBD
provides students with multiple means of representation,
multiple means of action and expression, and multiple means
of engagement. Across the LBD e-books, WiggleWorks
e-books, and the phonemic awareness and phonics software,
students read, responded, and interacted with stories and
activities that provided multiple pathways for learning. The
LBD e-books represents a rigorous application of UDL with
the embedded strategy instruction, multimedia, pedagogical
coaches, and varied student response options. The Wiggle-
Works e-books and the phonemic awareness and phonics
software also provided multimodal learning and options for
expression. In combination, the application of the UDL prin-
ciples seen in the LBD instructional approach shows promise
for improving the reading comprehension of young students
with significant intellectual challenges. The results add to
research on UDL-based approaches to literacy with other
struggling readers (Dalton et al., 2002; Hall & Murray, 2009;
Proctor et al., 2007; Proctor et al., 2009).
The LBD group’s improved performance on the WJ-III
Passage Comprehension subtest is noteworthy in that empha-
sis on comprehension is a cornerstone of the LBD approach.
There are several possible explanations for this result. Baseline
observations revealed that prior to this study three of the five
LBD classrooms and two of the four control classrooms relied
on skills-based curricula and methods focusing on single word
recognition, basic functional vocabulary often at the isolated
single word level, and phonics. In addition, reading materials
largely consisted of phonetically controlled readers with black
line illustrations and worksheets for comprehension and
vocabulary skills practice. Classroom observations indicate
that the initially skills-based LBD classrooms moved to a
more comprehensive approach with increased attention to
comprehension, whereas the skills-based control classrooms
did not. Although skills-based instructional programs remain
the norm for students with significant intellectual disabilities
(Erickson & Koppenhaver, 1995; Gurry & Larkin, 1999;
Katims, 2000), the results of this study add to the research
demonstrating the promise of comprehensive approaches
that develop literacy skills in meaningful contexts (Erickson
et al., 2009; Skotko et al., 2004). Consistent with the findings
of Houston and Torgesen (2004), the LBD focus on compre-
hension instruction in the context of reading real stories may
have proved beneficial for these students with significant
intellectual disabilities.
Gains on the WJ-III Word Attack subtest were strong in
effect. One explanation might be that students in the LBD group
had more opportunities to listen to the audio narration of the
stories in the LBD and WiggleWorks e-books and to practice
reading aloud with the audio-record feature. As with the reading
comprehension strategies, students had on-demand support in
the form of pedagogical agents who modeled the read-aloud
process and decoding animations that highlighted pronun-
ciation of the onset-rhymes of phonetically regular words. It
may be that these students had more practice than their peers
in the control group developing sound symbol relationships
of words frequently encountered in beginning level texts.
Differences in the two groups’ performance on the WJ-III
Listening Comprehension composite score based on the
Understanding Directions and Oral Comprehension subtests
indicated a strong effect and should be viewed conservatively.
This finding may be partially because of two functions of
the intervention software that are absent from printed text.
First, students interacted with language in multiple modes as
Table 4. Pretest and Posttest Reading and Language Achievement Standard Scores
Measure
Literacy by Design (n 8) Control (n 8)
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
M SD M SD M SD M SD F P Effect Size
WJ-III Letter-Word ID
a
85.1 15.9 81.6 23.1 65.9 19.5 61.0 19.1 0.084 .78 0.17
Understanding Directions 75.3 10.7 75.6 15.2 72.1 12.4 65.3 16.1 1.338 .27 0.58
Passage Comprehension 64.9 46.0 79.9 16.5 43.8 33.6 51.6 20.9 7.649 .02* 1.44
Word Attack 45.9 40.4 76.4 22.3 40.2 44.2 54.2 25.1 3.288 .09 0.91
Picture Vocabulary
a
92.6 13.3 95.9 12.3 73.0 14.8 82.8 8.1 0.142 .71 0.23
Oral Comprehension 49.8 41.4 80.9 33.2 35.4 39.0 48.5 42.1 2.264 .16 0.77
Sound Awareness 33.0 36.6 50.6 33.0 14.8 27.6 31.9 34.3 0.472 .50 0.36
Listening Comprehension composite 66.8 10.4 77.9 11.0 60.6 12.6 59.6 19.3 3.701 .08 1.00
Basic Reading composite 79.3 15.4 78.4 23.4 65.4 19.5 60.6 15.2 0.667 .42 0.44
Concepts About Print 2.6 1.8 11.0 5.9 2.3 2.5 7.1 4.4 3.327 .09 0.92
Letter Identification 36.5 20.2 45.1 13.2 28.1 19.3 41.0 11.4 0.026 .87 0.09
Woodcock–Johnson III standard score M 100, SD 15. Clay measures are raw scores.
a
Subtests yielded significant differences between groups on pretest.
*p .05.
at BOSTON COLLEGE on September 24, 2010rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Coyne et al. 9
they viewed, listened to, read, and interacted with the software
such as accessing embedded glossary items, using text to
speech to hear the story read aloud, and accessed embedded
video to support background knowledge. Second, unlike
printed text, the LBD e-books provided multiple opportuni-
ties for students to practice responding to embedded reading
comprehension strategy prompts. Accompanying pedagogical
agents elicited conversations between students and teachers
and provided models for how to talk about stories. Skotko
et al.’s (2004) research has shown that this kind of rich lan-
guage exchange about books is especially helpful to children
with significant intellectual disabilities.
The effect size for Concepts About Print was also strong.
This finding may be explained by functions of the software
that explicitly align with skills measured by this assessment.
For example, synchronized text to speech with word-by-word
highlighting repeatedly demonstrates the left-to-right, top-to-
bottom motion of reading text and clearly distinguishes text
from images. Students had repeated opportunities to practice
these skills on the computer, which may have made it easier
for them to apply them to print versions of text.
The ability to embed agents that provide instructional
scaffolds and supports distinguishes e-books from print texts
and may provide key learning supports beneficial to young
students with significant intellectual disabilities. Further
research is warranted to determine precisely which instruc-
tional scaffolds and supports are most beneficial for students
within this group who vary widely in abilities and needs.
Limitations and Implications
There are several limitations of the study. The small sample
size of 16 students resulted in an underpowered design.
Clearly, a study with a larger sample is needed, preferably
one that would allow analysis of learning outcomes in relation
to specific student characteristics and which would nest stu-
dent effects within classroom effects. Another limitation was
our reliance on the schools’ determination that each student
demonstrated significantly subaverage intellectual functioning
and deficits in two or more adaptive skills areas (Luckasson
et al., 1992). Pretest reading achievement data indicated sig-
nificant differences between the LBD and control students
on two reading subtests. Although we addressed this to some
degree by employing ANCOVA to analyze the posttest per-
formance adjusted for pretest scores, it is possible that
unknown group differences influenced the outcomes. Future
research should use pretest information to stratify students
based on reading, language, and cognitive abilities and ran-
domly assign students to treatment. A third limitation was
teachers’ sporadic reporting of software use, affecting docu-
mentation of fidelity of treatment data. The use of software
tracking would have provided valuable information about
students’ use of the software. Given the kind of customized
learning that is needed for all students to progress, it is
important to track their use of various features and to correlate
usage with learning outcomes and student characteristics.
This type of information is needed to refine UDL e-book
design principles and instruction for this population. Fourth,
we relied on pre-post standardized reading achievement
assessments that required verbal responses. Future research
should include nonverbal literacy assessment, similar to those
developed by Browder et al. (2008). And although not a
limitation per se, our experience with this work highlights
the need to conduct longitudinal research that follows stu-
dents over time to determine the effect of ongoing scaffolded
literacy learning and its implications for students’ academic
and life success.
Conclusion
These results provide some additional support for the view
that children of primary school age with significant intel-
lectual disabilities can benefit from evidence-based reading
instruction (NRP, 2000) applied in meaningful literacy con-
texts where learning is scaffolded in relation to students’
needs (Erickson et al., 2009; Erickson & Koppenhaver, 1995;
Katims, 2000). The study also suggests e-book design prin-
ciples and provides preliminary groundwork for applying
UDL principles to a literacy instructional approach that
emphasizes reading for understanding, developing reading
skills in context, incorporating universally designed e-books,
and deploying instructional software strategically to address
all aspects of reading development. Literacy instruction that
focuses exclusively on sight word recognition and functional
literacy may limit the potential of children with significant
intellectual disabilities. We hope that the promise found in
the results of this study, although limited, will lead to further
investigation of the potential of universal design and tech-
nology in expanding opportunities for access, participation,
and progress in the general education curriculum for young
students with significant intellectual disabilities.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect
to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Financial Disclosure/Funding
This work was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Special Education Programs to CAST, Inc.
(grant number H0324D020059). An earlier version of the LBD
prototype was developed with support from the Joseph P. Kennedy,
Jr. Foundation.
References
Almasi, J. F. (2003). Teaching strat egic re ading proces ses. New York,
NY: Guilford.
Al Otaiba, S., & Hosp, M. (2004). Service learning: Training
preservice teachers to provide effective literacy instruction to
at BOSTON COLLEGE on September 24, 2010rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
10 Remedial and Special Education XX(X)
students with Down syndrome. Te a ching Excepti onal Childre n,
36(4), 28–35.
Berk, L. E., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning:
Vygot sky and early child hood educat i on. Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Browder, D. M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G., Gibbs, S. L., &
Flowers, C. (2008). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an early
literacy program for students with significant developmental
disabilities using group randomized trial research. Exceptional
Children, 75, 33–52.
Browder, D. M., Gibbs, S., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G.,
& Lee, A. (2007). Early Literacy Skills Builder. Verona, WI:
Attainment Company.
Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L.,
& Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading instruction for
individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 72, 392–408.
Clay, M. M. (2000a). Letter Identification. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (2000b). Concepts About Print. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Designing
learning environments that support thinking: The Jasper series
as a case study. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyeh, & D. H. Jonassen
(Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning
(pp. 9–36). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive
apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and
mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and
instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dalton, B., & Coyne, P. (2002). Developing the thinking reader
technology-based instructional approach to support beginning
reading in children with mental retardation (Final report to the
Joseph P. Kennedy Foundation). Peabody, MA: CAST.
Dalton, B., Pisha, B., Coyne, P., Eagleton, M., & Deysher, S.
(2002). Engaging the text: Reciprocal teaching and questioning
strategies in a scaffolded learning environment (Final report to
the U.S. Office of Special Education). Peabody, MA: CAST.
Dalton, B., & Proctor, C. P. (2007). Reading as thinking: Inte-
grating strategy instruction in a universally designed digital
literacy environment. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading com-
prehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies
(pp. 423–442). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dalton, B., Zeph, L. Coyne, P., & Enright, B. (2006). Literacy by
Design: Creating universally designed reading environments
for students with significant cognitive disabilities (U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Final
Report H0324D020059). Wakefield, MA: CAST.
Erickson, K. (2004). MEville to WEville. Roseville, MN: Ablenet.
Erickson, K., Hanser, G., Hatch, P., & Sanders, E. (2009). Research-
based practices for creating access to the general curriculum in
reading and literacy for students with significant intellectual dis-
abilities (Final report to the Council of Chief State School Offi-
cers, Assessing Special Education Students, State Collaborative
on Assessment and Student Standards). Chapel Hill, NC: Cen-
ter for Literacy and Disabilities Studies. Retrieved from http://
www.ncksec.net/docs/notices/certified/ELA_AAS__CLDS
_-Final.pdf
Erickson, K. A., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (1995). Developing a lit-
eracy program for children with severe disabilities. Reading
Teacher, 48, 676–683.
Gurry, S. & Larkin, A. (1999). Literacy learning abilities of chil-
dren with developmental disabilities. Currents in Literacy, 2.
Retrieved from http://www.lesley.edu/academic_centers/hood/
currents/v2n1/gurry_larkin.html
Hall, T., & Murray, E. (2009). Monitoring student’s progress towards
standards in reading: A universally designed CBM system (Final
Report H327BO50009). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education: Office of Special Education Programs.
Hedrick, B. W., Katims, S. D., & Carr, J. N. (1999). Implementing
a multimethod, multilevel literacy program for students with
mental retardation. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Delays, 14, 231–239.
Houston, D., & Torgesen, J. (2004). Teac hing st u dents w ith mod -
erate disability to read: Insights from research. Tallahassee:
Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Instructional Support
and Community Services.
Huck, S. W. (2000). Reading statistics and research (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Longman.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997,
H.R. 5, 105th Cong. (1997). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/
offices/OSERS/Policy/IDEA/index.html
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004, H.R. 1350, 108th Cong. (2004). Retrieved from http://
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname 108
_cong_public_laws&docid f:publ446.108
Island Adventure [Computer software]. (1997). San Francisco, CA:
Riverdeep.
Jackson, R. (2005). Curriculum access for students with low-incidence
disabilities: The promise of universal design for learning. Wake-
field, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curricu-
lum. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/
ncac_lowinc.html
Katims, S. D. (2000). Literacy instruction for people with mental
retardation: Historical highlights and contemporary analysis.
Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Develop-
mental Disabilities, 35, 3–15.
Kliewer, C., & Biklen, D. (2001). School’s not really a place for
reading: A research synthesis of the literate lives of students
with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons
with Severe Handicaps, 26, 1–12.
Koppenhaver, D. A., Coleman, P. P., Kalman, S. L., & Yoder, D. E.
(1991). The implications of emergent literacy research for
at BOSTON COLLEGE on September 24, 2010rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Coyne et al. 11
children with developmental disabilities. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 1(1), 38–44.
Luckasson, R., Schalock, R. L., Spitalnik, D. M., Spreat, S.,
Tassé, M., Snell, M. E., . . . Craig, E. M. (1992). Mental retar-
dation: Definition, classification and systems of supports.
Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
MacArthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., Okolo, C. M., & Cavalier, A. R.
(2001). Technology applications for students with literacy
problems: A critical review. Elementary School Journal, 101,
273–301.
McLaughlin, M. J. (1999). Access to the general education curricu-
lum: Paperwork and procedure or redefining special education.
Journal of Special Education Leadership, 12(1), 9–14.
Mefferd, E. P., & Pettegrew, S. B. (1997). Fostering literacy acqui-
sition of students with developmental disabilities: Assisted
reading with predictable trade books. Reading Research and
Instruction, 36, 177–190.
Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (1998). Learning to read in the computer
age. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2005). The future is in the margins:
The role of technology and disability in educational reform. In
D. H. Rose, A. Meyer, & C. Hitchcock (Eds.), The universally
designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technolo-
gies (pp. 13–35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
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: Reports
of the subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child
Health and Development.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/
index.html
Ocean Adventure [Computer software]. (1997). San Francisco, CA:
Riverdeep.
O’Neill, L. M., & Dalton, B. (2002). Supporting beginning reading in
children with cognitive disability through technology. Exceptional
Parent, 32(6), 40–43.
Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of
universal design for learning. Remedial and Special Education,
22, 197–203.
President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education
Report. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for
children and their families. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/
inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports/index.html
Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2007). Scaffolding
English language learners and struggling readers in a univer-
sal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction
and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39,
71–94.
Proctor, C. P., Uccelli, P., Dalton, B., & Snow, C. E. (2009).
Understanding depth of vocabulary online with bilingual and
monolingual children. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25,
311–333.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital
age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Skotko, B. G., Koppenhaver, D. A., & Erickson, K. A. (2004).
Parent reading behaviors and communication outcomes in girls
with Rett syndrome. Exceptional Children, 70, 145–166.
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 technol-
ogy research and practice (pp. 545–569). Whitefish Bay, WI:
Knowledge by Design.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Smith, S. J., Palmer, S. B., Davies, D. K., &
Stock, S. E. (2004). Technology use and people with men-
tal retardation. In L. M. Glidden (Ed.), International review of
research in mental retardation (Vol. 29, pp. 293–337). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
WiggleWorks [Computer software]. (1996). New York, NY:
Scholastic.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in
problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
17, 89–100.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock–
Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
About the Authors
Peggy Coyne, EdD, is a research scientist at CAST. Her interests
include universal design for learning and literacy and the intersection
of these two in relation to preschool and elementary children and
their teachers and parents.
Bart Pisha, EdD, worked at CAST for 20 years, leaving his position
as director of research in 2005. Currently, he is principal of a con-
sulting and tutoring firm whose mission is to enhance college-bound
students’ chances of success.
Bridget Dalton, EdD, is an assistant professor at Vanderbilt
University’s Peabody College of Education. Her interests include
digital literacies, new media, and struggling readers.
Lucille A. Zeph, EdD, is director of the Center for Community
Inclusion and Disability Studies and associate professor of education
at the University of Maine. Her current interests include inclusive
education for students with intensive support needs and universal
design and access.
Nancy Cook Smith, PhD, is project psychometrician at the Science
Education Department of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astro-
physics. Her interests include classroom assessment, measurement
models in education and psychology, and assessments of teachers’
and students’ scientific misconceptions.
at BOSTON COLLEGE on September 24, 2010rse.sagepub.comDownloaded from
