The current research explored the use of a multimedia shared story to increase
the number of correct English and Spanish vocabulary words used by an English
language learner with a moderate intellectual disability. A 10-year-old
elementary student in a self-contained special education classroom participated
in this research. Utilizing the iBooks Author software, personalized shared
stories were created on an iPad® for the participant in both English and
Spanish. Each story incorporated pictures of items for which the student could
not provide a corresponding vocabulary word in either language. The multimedia
shared stories were then used to teach these vocabulary words in both English
and Spanish. Results showed that the student initially acquired Spanish
vocabulary words more quickly, but his English vocabulary words accelerated at a
faster rate over the course of the investigation. To support the quantitative
data, the students' teacher and paraprofessional were interviewed to determine
their experiences and to discuss nuances that occurred over the course of the
intervention. Results and implications for future research are discussed.
AugustD.CarloM.DresslerC.SnowC.
(2005). The critical role of vocabulary
development for English language learners. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 20,
50–57.
4.
BarlowD.
H.HayesS.
C. (1979).
Alternating treatments design: One strategy for comparing the
effects of two treatments in a single subject.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12,
199–210.
5.
BrowderD.
M.MimsP. J.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.LeeA.
(2008). Teaching elementary students with
multiple disabilities to participate in shared stories.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,
33, 3–12.
6.
BrowderD.
M.TrelaK.JimenezJ.
(2007). Training teachers to follow a task
analysis to engage middle school students with moderate and severe
developmental disabilities in grade appropriate literature.
Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,
22, 206–219.
BursuckW.
D.DamerM.
(2011). Teaching reading to students who are at risk or
have disabilities (2nd ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
9.
BurtonC.
E.AndersonD. H.PraterM. A.DychesT.
T. (2013).
Video self-modeling on an iPad to teach functional math
skills to adolescents with autism and intellectual
disability. Focus on Autism and Other
Disabilities, 28,
67–77.
10.
ClineZ.NecocheaJ.
(2003). Specially designed academic instruction
in English (SDAIE): More than just good instruction.
Multicultural Perspectives,
5(1),
18–24.
DowningJ.E.
(2005). Teaching literacy to students with significant
disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
13.
EngelmannS.OsbornJ.
(2001). Español to English.
Columbus, OH:
SRA/McGraw-Hill.
14.
FloresM.MusgroveK.RennerS.HintonV.StrozierS.FranklinS.et al
(2012). A comparison of communication using the
Apple iPad and a picture-based communication system.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication,
28, 74–84.
15.
GayL.MillsG.AirasianP.
(2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis
and application (8th ed.). New
York, NY: Prentice
Hall.
16.
GibsonA.
N.SchusterJ.
W. (1992).
The use of simultaneous prompting for teaching expressive
word recognition to preschool children. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 12,
247–267.
17.
Huerta-MaciasA.QuinteroE.
(1992). Code-switching, bilingualism, and
biliteracy: A case study. Bilingual Research
Journal, 16(3-A),
69–90.
18.
JusticeL.
M.KaderavekJ.
(2002). Using shared storybook reading to
promote emergent literacy. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 34(4),
8–13.
19.
KagoharaD.
M.SigafoosJ.AchmadiD.O'ReillyM. F.LancioniG.
(2012). Teaching children with autism spectrum
disorders to check the spelling of words. Research
in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6,
304–310
20.
KagoharaD.
M.van der MeerL.RamdossS.O'ReillyM. F.LancioniG. E.DavisT.
N.et al (2013).
Using iPods® and iPads® in teaching programs for individuals
with developmental disabilities. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 34,
147–156.
21.
KaufmanA.
S.KaufmanN.
L. (2004). Kaufman
brief intelligence test (2nd ed.).
Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service.
22.
KennedyC.
(2005). Single case designs for educational
research. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
23.
KrashenS.
(1999). Condemned without trial: Bogus arguments
against bilingual education. Portsmouth,
NH:
Heinemann.
24.
MayerR.
E. (2005).
Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In
MayerR.
E. (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of multimedia learning
(31–38). New York,
NY: Cambridge University
Press.
25.
MayerR.
E.SimsV.
K. (1994).
For whom is a picture worth a thousands words? Extensions of
dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 36,
389–401.
26.
MechlingL.
C. (2004).
Effects of multimedia, computer-based instruction on grocery
shopping fluency. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 19 (1),
23–34.
27.
MechlingL.
C.GastD. L.KrupaK.
(2007). Impact of SMART board technology: An
investigation of sight word reading and observational
learning. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 37,
1869–1882.
28.
MillerB.
T.KrockoverG. H.DoughtyT.
(2013). Using iPads to teach science to students
with moderate to severe intellectual disability: A pilot
study. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 50(8),
887–911.
29.
MollL.
C.AmantiC.NeffD.GonzálezN.
(1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a
qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms.
Theory into Practice, 31,
132–141.
30.
MuellerT.
G.SingerG. H. S.CarranzaF.
D. (2006). A
national survey of the educational planning and language instruction
practices for students with moderate to severe disabilities who are English
language learners. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 31(3),
242–254.
31.
National Reading Panel.
(2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching
students to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research
literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports
of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD:
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,
National Institutes of Health
32.
PaivioA.
(1986). Mental representations: A dual coding
approach. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
33.
PattonM.
Q. (1990).
Qualitative evaluation and research methods.
Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
34.
PlassJ.
L.ChunD. M.MayerR. E.LeutnerD.
(1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning
preferences in a second language multimedia learning
environment. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90,
25–36.
35.
ReidJ.
M. (1987).
The learning style preferences of ESL
students. TESOL Quarterly,
21, 87–111.
36.
RiveraC.
J. (2013).
Multimedia shared stories: A different approach to teaching
emergent literacy skills to diverse learners.
Teaching Exceptional Children,
45(6),
38–45.
37.
RiveraC.
J.SpoonerF.WoodC. L.HicksS.
C. (2013).
Multimedia shared stories for diverse learners with moderate
intellectual disability. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 28(4),
53–68.
38.
RiveraC.
J.WoodC. L.SpoonerF.
(2012). Comparative effects of Spanish and
English vocabulary instruction for English language learners with moderate
intellectual disability. Multiple Voices for
Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners,
13(1),
42–55.
39.
RobertsC.
A. (1994).
Transferring literacy skills from L1 to L2: From theory to
practice. Journal of Educational Issues of Language
Minority Students, 13,
209–221.
40.
RohenaE.
I.JitendraA. K.BrowderD.
M. (2002).
Comparison of the effects of Spanish and English constant
time delay instruction on sight word reading by Hispanic learners with
mental retardation. Journal of Special
Education, 36,
171–186.
41.
RuedaR.MonzoL.HigaredaI.
(2004). Professional roles, caring, and
scaffolds: Latino teachers' and paraeducators' interactions with Latino
students. American Journal of Education,
109(4),
438–471.
42.
SilvermanR.HinesS.
(2009). The effects of multimedia-enhanced
instruction on the vocabulary of English-language learners and
non-English-language learners in pre kindergarten through second
grade. Journal of Educational Psychology,
101,
305–314.
43.
SnellM.
E.GastD.
L. (1981).
Applying time delay procedures to the instruction of the
severely handicapped. Journal of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps, 5,
3–14.
44.
SpoonerF.BakerJ. N.HarrisA. A.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.BrowderD.
M. (2007).
Effects of training in Universal Design for Learning on
lesson plan development. Remedial and Special
Education, 28,
108–116.
45.
SpoonerF.RiveraC. J.BrowderD. M.BakerJ. N.SalasS.
(2009). Teaching emergent literacy skills using
cultural contextual story based lessons. Research
and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,
34, 102–112.
46.
StockwellG.
(2007). Vocabulary on the move: Investigating an
intelligent mobile phone-based vocabulary tutor.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20,
365–383
47.
WatkinsC.SlocumT.
(2004). The components of direct
instruction. In Marchand-MartellaN.
E.SlocumT. A.MartellaR.
C. (Eds.), Introduction to
direct instruction (pp. 28–65).
Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
48.
WoleryM.AultM. J.DoyleP. M.GastD.
L. (1986).
Comparison of instructional strategies: A literature
review. (U.S. Department of Education, Grant No. G008530197).
Lexington, KY: Department of
Special Education.
