LITERACY INSTRUCTION, TECHNOLOGY, AND

STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES:

RESEARCH WE HAVE, RESEARCH WE NEED

Michael J. Kennedy and Donald D. Deshler

Abstract. Technology, whether assistive (AT) or instructional

(IT), has played an uneven role in the field of learning disabilities
since its inception more than a half century ago. In addition, tech-
nology is in a constant state of flux; hence, researchers have been
challenged to conduct appropriate experimental testing of inter-
ventions before they are outdated or made irrelevant by advances
in hardware and software. As schools seek to improve learning
outcomes for all students using tiered instructional models such
as response to intervention (RTI), practitioners need assistance in
capitalizing on AT, IT, or a combination of the two, to guide and
enrich literacy instruction for students with learning disabilities.
This article presents a conceptual framework for multimedia
instructional design grounded in theory and empirical research.
The article concludes with recommendations for how to integrate
multimedia literacy instruction within RTI frameworks

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
learning disabilities (LD) perform and the demands
of the curriculum that they are expected to meet is
ofteri wide. This is especially the case as students move
into the secondary grades where curricular expectations
accelerate and content demands (e.g., history, science,
mathematics) are markedly different.
The long-term consequences of the challenges stu-
dents with LD face are underscored in data from the
National Longitudinal Transition Study II, which found
(a) 21% of students with LD are five or more grade levels
below in reading; (b) 31% of students with LD drop out
of school compared to 9.4% of nondisabled peers; and
(c) only 11% of students with LD attend postsecondary
instituüons (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005).
Fortunately, considerable progress has been made in
designing and validating interventions and instruc-
tional protocols that markedly improve academic out-
comes for students with LD. Increasingly, protocols
have included technology-based solutions based on the
rapid development of technology tools focused on read-
ing. Developments in technology-based supports, espe-
cially in the area of literacy instruction for students with
LD, have promising implications for instruction and
learning (McKenna & Proctor, 2006). Although the evi-
dence base for using technology in the literacy instruc-
tion of students with LD is relatively small (Okolo &
Bouck, 2007), curriculum designers and educators have
the opportunity to integrate validated instructional
practices with technology to markedly improve the

Volume 33, Fall 2010 289

design and implementation of instructional' protocols
and practices (Kamil, 2003).
With the promise of technology to enhance literacy-
related outcomes, this article will (a) briefly review cur-
rent efforts in technology to address literacy instruction
for students with LD; (b) present a conceptual frame-
work for designing multimedia instruction intended to
augment literacy learning of children with LD; and (c)
outline recommendations for integrating multimedia
literacy instruction into a tiered instructional frame-
works (e.g., response to intervention) and pose ques-
tions for future research.
TECHNOLOGY AND LITERACY
INSTRUCTION, WHAT WE KNOW
Numerous lines of sustained research have been
undertaken in the field of LD to promote the develop-
ment of strong literacy and overall learning skills for
students (cf. Deshler & Schumaker, 2006; Fuchs, Fuchs,
& Burish, 2000; Graham & Harris, 2005; Scruggs,
Mastropieri, Berkeley, & Graetz, in press). Each line of
research shares a common attribute: It focuses on build-
ing capacity within children to become proficient learn-
ers (across various contextual settings) without the need
for ongoing external support. Likewise, technology-
based solutions, when designed from theoretically
sound pedagological principles, are often, tools that
schools can use to augment traditional face-to-face lit-
eracy instruction (Boone & Higgins, 2007; McKenna &
Walpole, 2007; Torgesen & Barker, 1995).
While sustained lines of research in the area of tech-
nology are only beginning to emerge (cf. Anderson-
Inman, 2009), this field has the capacity to benefit from
existing empirical groundwork as a launching point.
Below we attempt to contextualize current technology-
based literacy instruction by (a) reviewing a select num-
ber of studies that examine technology tools that
promote literacy-related skill development, and (b)
highlighting an existing framework for integrating
technology into literacy instruction (King-Sears &
Evmenova, 2007).
Technology and Literacy Instruction
While a review of the literature on technology-based
solutions and literacy instruction garners a number of
articles (e.g., Edyburn, 2003, 2006, 2007), few offer evi-
dence of the impact of technology on literacy instruc-
tion. Nevertheless, research lines do exist. For example,
Anderson-Inman and her colleagues from the National
Center for Supported eText (NCSeT) have undertaken a
sustained line of research in support of the concept of
supported electronic text (eText). Supported eText helps
students gain access to text through simple changes to
font size, color, and availability of other tools that are
Learning Disability Quarterly
assistive in nature. However, the intent of this innova-
tion and research is not limited to promoting access
(Anderson-Inman, 2009). This research group seeks to
improve student decoding, fluency, and reading com-
prehension through various embedded supports such as
electronic dictionaries, links to outside resources, and
utilization of cognitive learning strategies (Anderson-
Inman & Horney, 2007). Empirical data from the NCSeT
group have established a record of positive outcomes
among students from various age groups and content
areas (see Anderson-Inman, 2009).
Other examples of empirically validated uses of tech-
nology to promote literacy instruction target areas of
vocabulary instruction and reading comprehension
instruction. Xin and Rieth (2001) used a series of videos
in part to provide vocabulary and comprehension
instruction using the construct of anchored instruction
(Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990)!
Students who were taught using the technology-based
materials made significant gains in number of vocabu-
lary words learned vs. control condition students.
Likewise, Kim and her colleagues (Kim et al., 2006) used
the essential principles of the Collaborative Strategic
Reading program (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996) and built
upon them to create a technology-based program
(Computer-Assisted Collaborative Strategic Reading;
CACSR). The CACSR was used during an experimental
study to teach reading comprehension and other liter-
acy skills to students with disabilities; findings from this
research favored students who had exposure to the tech-
nology-based program.
In these experimental studies with a focus on literacy
outcomes for students with LD, researchers began with
theoretically based instructional principles and intro-
duced logical uses of technology to deliver literacy
instruction. As a result, the combination of the effective
practice with a technology-based solution proved to be
an effective intervention. We argue that further research
that follows this model is needed in the area of tech-
nology-based solutions specific to literacy instruction.
Building sustained lines of research takes time and
resources; yet, the research we have clearly shows that
(a) technology can be useful in promoting literacy learn-
ing for students witb LD, and (b) existing evidence-
based practices for literacy instruction may be of benefit
to teachers and students if repacked and delivered using
technology.
Technology Integration Framework
Regardless of the growing research, if we are to see
technology integration within literacy instruction, edu-
cators need guidelines or explicit instructions for how
various uses of technology fit within their existing
repertoires of practice (McKenna & Proctor, 2006). An
290
example of a practitioner-friendly framework for tech-
nology integration into literacy instruction is King-Sears
and Evmenova's (2007) TECH framework: "Target the
students' needs and the learning outcomes; Examine
the technology choices, then decide what to use; Create
opportunities to integrate technology with other
instructional activities; and Handle the implementa-
tion, and monitor the impact on the students' learning"
(p. 10).
Recent research has confirmed that many practition-
ers working with students with LD do not use evidence-
based strategies found to help raise literacy achievement
(Klingner, Urbach, Golos, Brownell, & Menon, 2010). As
researchers and practitioners consider technology-based
solutions that are available (given limited district and
school resources) for various learning scenarios, the
TECH framework should be viewed as a straightforward
and logical approach to individualizing instruction to
meet the needs of students, while not using technology
simply because it happens to be available. A limitation
of this framework is the burden left to practitioners in
terrns of recognizing the cognitive demands of various
learning activities and sorting through available tech-
nology options to deliver efficient and effective literacy
instruction.
Maccini, Gagnon, and Hughes (2002) conducted a
significant review of technology-based practices for sec-
ondary students with LD and noted several recommen-
dations to the field. Two of these recommendations are
as follows: (a) use technology systematically and strate-
gically in instruction; and (b) incorporate effective
instructional design principles within technology-based
instruction (Kelly, Carnine, Gersten, & Grossen, 1986;
Kelly, Gersten, & Carnine, 1990).
We use these two key recommendations in offering a
conceptual framework that seeks to bridge theory and
practice with respect to technology-based solutions and
effective literacy instruction for students with LD. It is
our belief that practitioners need rriore explicit guidance
in terms of selecting or designing technology-supported
(e.g., multimedia) materials to support the literacy
learning needs of students with LD. This need for
explicit guidance provides the rationale for the concep-
tual framework presented here.
! CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
tlearly, the literacy of yesterday is not the literacy
of today, arid it will not be the literacy of tomorrow.
(Leu, 2000, p. 744)
While the empirical base for using IT to improve lit-
eracy skills and outcomes for students with LD is still
solidifying, existing data provide ample rationale to
warrant future inquiries (Maccini et al., 2002; Okolo &
Volume 33, Fall 2010
Bouck, 2007). The purpose of this conceptual frame-
work (see Figure 1) is to ground future research and
implementation of technology-based solutions within
tiered instructional models (e.g., RTI) to improve liter-
acy skills for students with LD. The conceptual frame-
work is organized around four major theoretical
principles that individually and collectively influence
design and delivery of literacy instruction for students
with LD: (a) the deictic relationship between technol-
ogy and literacy (Leu, 2000); (b) technological pedago-
logical content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2005); (c)
multimedia instructional design principles (Mayer,
2009); and (d) the enzymatic theory of education (Fox,
1983; Larsen, 1995).
As illustrated in Figure 1, the center of the proposed
conceptual framework is the proactive student-centered
learning theory, the enzymatic theory of education
(ETE; Fox, 1983). Our philosophy regarding the purpose
of specia.1 education for students with LD is to help stu-
dents remediate areas of academic struggle through
individualized interventions comprised of a menu of
evidence-based practices. Therefore, our graphic shows
the ETE surrounded by instructional design theories and
practices intended to promote active learning in specific
areas of need.
The Deictic Relationship Between Technology and
Literacy
We have entered a period of rapid and continuous
change in the forms and functions of literacy.
Today, changing technologies for information and
communication and changing envisionments for
their use rapidly and continuously redefine the
nature of literacy. (Leu, 2000. pp. 744-745)
The concept of deixis within the field of literacy and
technology means that the overall nature and essence of
literacy and technology are changing so rapidly and
thoroughly that it is difficult to define and describe
either, let alone both in tandem (Leu, 2000). In a sense,
the seemingly obvious questions "what is literacy?" and
"what is instructional technology?" (and their respec-
tive answers) have become moving targets. For
researchers and practitioners seeking to understand the
interrelated and dynamic relationships between literacy
and technology, the deictic nature of this relationship
makes experimental rigor demanded in today's research
climate a complex proposition (Leu, 2000).
Across the field of education, rapid and often unpre-
dictable advances in technology are well documented.
However, the concept of literacy is also an evolving con-
struct (Leu, 2000). Hence, tying down a satisfactory def-
inition and description of literacy is problematic (Moje,
2007). A significant line of research has been under-
taken in tbe "new literacies" (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear,
291
 Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Deictic Nature of
Literacy and Technology
(Leu, 2000)
Enzymatic
Theory of
Education
(Fox, 1983)
/ Technology
Pedagological Content
Knowledge
(Koehler & Mishra, 2005)
& Leu, 2008) to learn more about the cognitive and
practical differences promoted by changing construc-
tions of what it means to be literate.
Systemic problems ofdeixis. With regard to technol-
ogy-based literacy interventions with limited rigorous
field and experimental testing, educators may be cau-
tious about the practices they select for classroom use.
An important consideration in this respect is whether
the technology-based interventions have an underly-
ing theoretical basis. Therefore, it is critical that sus-
tained programs of research in this area be undertaken
(Anderson-Inman, 2009; Edyburn, 2007; Maccini et al.,
2002; Okolo & Bouck, 2007). This research will guide
practitioners attempting to provide individualized
services to students with LD across tiers of instruction.
With that said. Klingner et al.'s (2010) recent findings
remind us that not all educators implement evidence-
based practices with the fidelity necessary for success.
Therefore, researchers must ensure new practices are
powerful, but also usable by the intended audience.
Technological Pedagological Content Knowledge
(TPACK)
TPACK and the deictic interplay of literacy and
technology. Practitioners, teacher educators, and re-
searchers can do little to alter the rapidly changing
Learning Disability Quarterly
Cognitive Theory of
Multimedia Learning
(Mayer, 2009)
landscape of how technology influences literacy
instruction, except trying to keep up (Leu, 2000).
Therefore, as educators consider technology as a
strategy to augment literacy instruction, a major con-
sideration will be the capacity to rapidly integrate
technology-based solutions into existing teaching reper-
toires. Educators at all levels of the profession have a
long history of resisting or rejecting new interventions
that are not a logical flt with their existing approaches
to teaching. Technology can play a- role in helping
teachers structure individualized literacy instruction;
however, the use of technology must be augmentative
and logical in terms of its impact on the overall instruc-
tional plan (Larsen, 1995; Maccini et al., 2002).
Researchers have developed an instructional design
framework that seamlessly integrates technology, con-
tent, and pedagogy for design and delivery of various
types of content, known as technological pedagological
content knowledge, or TPACK for short (Koehler &
Mishra, 2005). Koehler and Mishra describe TPACK as
an extension of Shulman's (1987) classic construct of
pedagological content knowledge. We see TPACK as a
helpful construct for conceptualizing and organizing the
role of IT for delivering literacy instruction when teach-
ing students with LD across all tiers of an RTI model.
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 fj-amework, 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
have capacity to internalize information through visual
researchers. First, it is critical that evidence-based prac-
and auditory channels in working memory (Paivio,
tices I that address literacy skills be in place across all
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 speciflc 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,
2009, p. 63)
ing and embedding technology that complements liter-
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 2008). When designing instructional materials to
unsolved, especially for the typical educator responsibleaddress 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 ciflc element of the triarchic model of cognitive load by
(a) limiting extraneous processing, (b) managing essen-
is the actual "looks and sounds" of specific technology-
tial processing, and (c) fostering generative processing
based program or intervention. In the next section we
(Mayer, 2009).
describe an important instructional design principle
that tan 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.
encei(Boone & Higgins, 2007; Mayer, 2009). This is one The CTML and literacy learning of students with
reasqn 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
2007i). Literacy instruction should reflect multimedia performance Johnson, Humphrey, Mellard, Woods, &
design principles that are a match for the cognitive Swanson, 2010; 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, & Köhler, 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.
1991Í) 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 Coherence Principle Instructional materials are enhanced when

Extraneous irrelevant or extraneous information is
Processing excluded
Signaling Principle Learning is enhanced when explicit cues are
provided that signal the beginning of major
headings or elements of the material being
covered
Redundancy Principle Inclusion of extensive text (transcription) on
screen along with spoken words and pictures
hinders learning. Carefully selected words or
short phrases, however, augment retention
(Mayer & Johnson, 2008)
Spatial Contiguity Principle On-screen text and pictures should be
presented in close proximity to one another
to limit eye shifting during instructional
presentations
Temporal Contiguity Principle Pictures and text shown on screen should
correspond to the audio presentation

Manage Modality Principle People learn better from spoken words and
Essential pictures than they do from pictures and text
Processing alone
Segmenting Principle People learn better when multimedia
presentations are divided into short bursts (5-7
minutes) as opposed to longer modules
Pretraining Principle Instructional messages should contain some
sort of orienting message to introduce the
forthcoming content

Foster Multimedia Principle People learn better from pictures and spoken
Generative words than from words alone
Processing
Personalization, Voice, and Narration presented in a conversational style
Image Principles results in better engagement and learning than
more formal audio presentations

Adapted from "Using enhanced podcasts to augment limited instructional time in teacher preparation," by M. J. Kennedy, J. E. Hart, & R. O.
Kellems (in press). Teacher Education and Special Education. Copyright 2010 by Sage. Used with permission.

Learning Disability Quarterly 294

or ali:ogether ineffective if they are not produced with
the individualized cognitive needs of the target learner
in rriind (Mayer, 2009). As professionals design multi-
media instructional materials that explicitly address
learning demands presented by text or content, Mayer's
CTML and accompanying instructional design princi-
ples may be a pathway to ensure the look and sound
of materials adhere to the theoretical principles of mul-
timedia learning and the cognitive learning needs of
students with LD.
I literature germane to teaching literacy skills to students
Enzymatic Theory of Education
Fox's (1983) enzymatic theory of education (ETE)
completes our conceptual framework and vision for use
of rriultimedia instruction to promote literacy skills
amohg students with LD. A student-centered learning
theory (Larsen, 1995), the ETE is a logical match given
the other elements of our conceptual framework (e.g.,
deictiic nature of literacy, TPACK, and the CTML). The
ETE holds that students with LD need instruction that
facilitates, enhances, and accelerates cognitive pro-
cesses and overall motivation (Fox, 1983; Larsen,
1995). In this model, students are encouraged and
expected to be catalysts in their own learning, as
opposed to being passive recipients of information.
To¡ provide instruction in line with the ETE, practi-.
tioners must select or design instructional materials
that 'are grounded in theory and are a logical match for
the demands of the intended audience. To create
instruction with technology that is of use for students
with LD, therefore, it is necessary to consider all aspects
of a' computer program, including dimensions of
graphics, text, feedback types, motivation, and learner
control (Larsen, 1995).
Mayer's CTML and accompanying instructional
design principles are a logical method for authoring
mulilimedia instruction that facilitates learning among
students with LD. Educators who develop their teach-
ing repertoire within a TPACK framework and consis-
tently create multimedia instructional materials that
adhere to theory-based instructional design and learn-
ing principles will find students who are more engaged
and 'successful in their literacy and overall learning.
The lETE is an essential piece of instruction occurring
within RTI frameworks, especially for struggling and
frustrated students at tiers 2 and 3.
Summary of Conceptual Framework
Teaching students with LD - at any level or in any
content area - is a complex task for any educator. This
complexity is sustained and perpetuated, at least in part,
by the deictic nature of technology and literacy (Leu,
2000). Fortunately, educators have the capacity to be
guided by theoretical principles for instructional design
and ¡can look to empirical research to bolster existing
Voiume 33, Fall 2010
teaching repertoires that work for literacy learning.
Evidence-based practices for literacy instruction (e.g.,
Torgesen et al., 2007) and instructional design frame-
works (e.g., TPACK, UDL; Mayer's CTML) can guide
construction of homegrown technology-based prac-
tices and interventions that empower the hands-on
learning of students with LD.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our review of the theoretical and empirical
with LD in a tiered instructional system, we propose
three recommendations for practitioners. Following
the recommendations is an analysis of how practition-
ers can embed each of the recommendations within an
RTI framework.
Recommendation 1
Select or design multimedia materials for use in liter-
acy instruction that (a) logically extend existing peda-
gogy; and (b) explicitly help students build skills
necessary for literacy-related success, including meet-
ing individual needs, along with demands of local and
state standards (Koehler & Mishra, 2005).
Recommendation 2
Design or select multimedia materials that limit
extraneous processing, rrianage essential processing,
and foster active learning through micromanagement
of literally every image and sound that is presented to
students during multimedia instruction (DeLeeuw &
Mayer, 2008; Mayer, 2009).
Recommendation 3
Incorporate validated theories of learning into multi-
media-based literacy instruction (Kelly et al., 1986;
Kelly et al;, 1990). However, (a) shape instruction to
refiect the discipline- or task-specific literacy demands
of the subject matter being learned, and (b) ensure mul-
timedia instruction adheres to the instructional design
principles of Mayer's CTML.
RTI Implications: Recommendation 1
Recommendation 1 is intended to build on the theo-
retical construct of TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2005) to
guide practitioners away from conceptualizing the var-
ious tiers as places, and instead select evidence-based
interventions necessary for helping students augment
overall literacy capacity. The core of this recommenda-
tion is that practitioners must take time to reflect on
(a) the demands of the curriculum, (b) existing EBPs for
providing instruction, (c) the needs of individual stu-
dents, and (d) opportunities to incorporate a logical
and powerful form of instructional technology into
instruction.
A critical element of TPACK is that technology inte-
gration is not an afterthought in the process, but is
295
embedded in planning and reflection across all instruc-
tional planning and design. For students with LD who
need explicit instruction that may occur in tiers 2 or 3,
technology can influence or augment existing
approaches to skill remediation (McKenna & Walpole,
2007). Numerous technology-based stand-alone pro-
grams or individual interventions provide targeted lit-
eracy instruction to students who need sound- or word-
level instruction (e.g.. Read 180, supported eText).
However, matching individualized student needs with
technology-based interventions is not an automatic
process.
In summary, educators should provide explicit liter-
acy instruction to students who need it; however, sim-
ply plugging children into a computer terminal
installed with a stand-alone reading program without
explicit consideration of how the technology-based
solutions logically fits within the overall scope of the
child's development is not advised.
RTI Implications: Recommendation 2
A common misconception regarding use of technol-
ogy is that it is effective regardless of the theoretical
and pedagological principles that went into (or did not
go into) authoring the software or intervention (Boone
& Higgins, 2007). Recommendation 2, based on the
cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML;
Mayer, 2009), is intended to guide practitioners in their
design of multimedia instructional materials for use in
any instructional setting with students. When it comes
to instructional design, with or without the use of tech-
nology, educators at every level should carefully con-
sider the ease with which students' working memories
and capacity for cognitive load can be overwhelmed
(Chandler & Sweller, 1991; Mayer, 2009). Careful con-
sideration of limited cognitive capacity and propensity
for overload is even more critical when planning liter-
acy instruction for students with LD.
Mayer's instructional design principles (see Table 1)
do not constitute a step-by-step roadmap for instruc-
tional design, but may be thought of as a "construction
checklist" of essential features that the construction
site foreman checks off as he or she oversees the com-
binations of materials (e.g., steel, wood, pipes, wires)
being assembled within a new structure. Mayer's frame-
work is content-neutral, in that it is useful for guiding
instructional design of content or practices from a wide
variety of disciplines. With that in mind, the CTML
and accompanying design features help practitioners
ensure that the look and sound of the instruction are
appropriate in terms of limiting extraneous processing,
fostering the processes in working memory, and man-
aging active learning. These guidelines are applicable to
the design of instruction at tiers 1, 2, or 3.
Learning Disability Quarterly
RTI Implications: Recommendation 3
The purpose of the enzymatic theory of education
is to promote an active learning environment for
students. In many schools, instruction at tiers 2 arid
3 is very repetitive and dull. While, by nature, remedial
reading instruction is not an exciting activity, for
students with LD, it is one of the most important
activities they will participate in during school
(Torgesen & Barker, 1995). Therefore, practitioners
must find ways to make instruction relevant to stu-
dents regardless of the topics or skills being taught.
Technology is one strategy that can assist in this criti-
cal endeavor.
Using Mayer's design principles only accomplishes
half of the goal with respect to effective design of mul-
timedia instructional literacy materials. The best tech-
nology in the world cannot compensate for a poorly
designed and executed lesson. For students with LD in
intensive literacy learning situations, the practitioner
must be knowledgeable, skilled, and ready with a menu
of evidence-based practices to support learning. As
noted, technology-based solutions created with specific
design properties and that fit logically within the scope
of a curriculum can be recommended for use (Kelly et
al., 1990). However, instruction should still be engaging
and relevant to learners to the extent practical given the
type of instruction.
Finally, educators should examine existing evidence-
based practices and programs for improving literacy
outcomes for students with LD in search of opportuni-
ties to infuse technology into existing practice. We do
not recommend that practitioners make haphazard
changes to existing practices or curricula. Instead,
numerous opportunities exist to conduct action re-
search projects where careful data are taken regarding
student performance and response to technology-
infused instruction.
The Research We Need
In conclusion, we pose three lingering questions to be
addressed by researchers and teacher educators in the
field of technology-based literacy learning for students
with LD:
1. What are the barriers and professional develop-
ment considerations regarding providing effective
multimedia literacy instruction at tiers 1, 2, and 3
to students with LD?
2. What are the implications for teacher education in
, terms of preparing teacher candidates to build
teaching frameworks that include TPACK and
other IT practices?
3. Under which learning scenarios (grade level, con-
tent area, instructional setting) is multimedia liter-
acy instruction most effective? What theoretical
. 296
 grounding and evidence-based instructional prac-
tices were used in the most effective experiments?
As hoted by numerous other researchers, more empir-
ical research' is needed related to multimedia literacy
learning for students with LD.
REFERENCES
Anderson-Inman, L. (2009). Supported eText: Literacy scaffolding
for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 24(3), 1-7.
Anderson-Inman, L., & Homey, M. A. (2007). Supported eText:
Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42(1), 153-160.
Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2007). The role of instructional design
in assistive technology research and development. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42(1), 135-140.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the
format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332.
The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990).
Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition.
Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C, & Leu, D. J. (2008). Handbook
of research on new literacies. New York: Lawrence Eribaum
Associates.
DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three meas-
ures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrin- Leu, D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences
sic,: extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100, 223-234.
Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2006). Teaching adolescents with
disabilities-Accessing the general education curriculum. Thousand Maccini, P., Gagnon, J. C, & Hughes, C. A. (2002). Technology-
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Edyburn, D. L. (2003). Learning from text. Special Education
Technology Practice, 5(2), 16-27.
Edyburn, D. (2006). Cognitive prostheses for students with mild
disabilities: Is this what assistive technology looks like? Journal McKenna, M. C, & Walpole, S. (2007). Assistive technology in the
of Special Education Technology, 21(4), 62-65.
Edyburn, D. L. (2007). Technology-enhanced reading perform-
ance: Defining a research agenda. Reading Research Quarterly,
42(1), 146-152.
Fox, D. (1983). Personal theories of teaching. Stiidies in Higher
Education, 8, 151-163.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Students with learning disabil-
ities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies.
In: L.H Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds). Handbook of
learning disabilities (pp. 323-344). New York: Guilford.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Köhler, M. (2009). Teachers' technological
pedagological knowledge and learning activity types:
Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.
Johnson, E. S., Humphrey, M., Mellard, D. F., Woods, K., &
Swanson, H. L. (2010). Cognitive processing deficits and stu-
dents with specific learning disabilities: A selective meta analy- Scruggs,
sis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 3-18.
Kamil', M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st
century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Kelly, B., Carnine, D., Gersten, R., & Grossen, B. (1986). The effec-
tiveness of videodisc instruction in teaching fractions to learn-
ing-disabled and remédiai high school students. Journal of
Special Education Technology, 8, 5-17.
Keiiy, B., Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1990). Student error patterns
as a function of curriculum design: Teaching fractions to reme-
dial high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 23, 23-29.
I
Volume 33, Fall 2010-
Kennedy, M. J., Hart, J. E., & Keilems, R. O. (in press). Using
enhanced podcasts to augment limited instructional time in
teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education.
Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Kiingner, J., Woodruff, A. L., Reutebuch, C.
K., & Kouzekanani, K. (2006). Improving the reading compre-
hension of middle school students with disabilities through
computer-assisted collaborative strategic reading. Remedial and
Special Education, 27(4) 235-249.
King-Sears, M. E., & Evmenova, A. S. (2007). Premises, principles,
and processes for integrating TECHnoiogy into instruction.
' Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(1), 6-14.
Klingner, J. K., Urbach, J., Golos, D., Browneii, M., & Menon, S.
(2010). Teaching reading in the 21st century: A giimpse at how
special education teachers promote reading comprehension.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(2), 59-74.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of read-
ing comprehension strategies for students with learning dis-
abilities who use English as a second language. Elementary
School Journal, 96, 275-293.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers
design educational technology? The development of techno-
logical pedagological content knowledge. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.
Larsen, S. (1995). What is "quality" in the use of technology for
children with learning disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly,
18, 118-130.
for literacy education in an information age. In M. L. Kamil, P.
B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of read-
ing research (Vol III, pp. 743-770). New York: Routledge.
based practices for secondary students with learning disabili-
ties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 247-261.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
reading clinic: Its emerging potential. Reading Research
Quarterly, 42(1), 140-145.
McKenna, M. C, & Proctor, K. M. (2006). The role of technology
in the professional development of literacy educators. In M. C.
McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.),
International handbook of literacy and technology (Voi II, pp. 273-
286). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.
Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruc-
tion: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching.
Review of Research in Education, 3(1), 1-44.
Okolo, C. M., & Bouck, E. C. (2007). Research about assistive tech-
nology: 2000-2006. What have we learned? Journal of Special
Education Technology, 22(3), 19-33.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Berkeley, S., & Graetz, J. E. (in
press). Do special education interventions improve learning of
secondary content? Remedial and Special Education.
Shuiman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the
new reform.'Harvaríí Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Swanson, H. L. (2001). Research on interventions for adolescents
with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related
to higher-order processing. The Elementary School Journal,
101(3), 331-348.
Torgesen, J. K., & Barker, T. A. (1995). Computers as aids in the
prevention and remediation of reading disabilities. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 18, 76-87.
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. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: Xin, J. F., & Rieth, H. (2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instruction
A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Portsmouth, for elementary school students with learning disabilities.
NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 87-103.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P. (2005). 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 1122 W. Campus Road, Room 522, Lawrence, KS 66045; e-mail:
(NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Available at KennedyM@ku.edu.

Learning Disability Quarterly 298

Copyright of Learning Disability Quarterly is the property of Council for Learning Disabilities and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.