Article

Effects of Multimedia Vocabulary Instruction Journal of Learning

Disabilities 2015, Vol. 48(1)
on Adolescents With Learning Disabilities 22–38
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities
2013 Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022219413487406
journaloflearningdisabilities.sagepub.com

Michael J. Kennedy, PhD1, Donald D. Deshler, PhD2, and John Wills Lloyd, PhD1

Abstract
The purpose of this experimental study is to investigate the effects of using content acquisition podcasts (CAPs), an
example of instructional technology, to provide vocabulary instruction to adolescents with and without learning
disabilities (LD). A total of 279 urban high school students, including 30 with LD in an area related to reading, were
randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions with instruction occurring at individual computer terminals over
a 3-week period. Each of the four conditions contained different configurations of multimedia-based instruction and
evidence-based vocabulary instruction. Dependent measures of vocabulary knowledge indicated that students with LD
who received vocabulary instruction using CAPs through an explicit instructional methodology and the keyword
mnemonic strategy significantly outperformed other students with LD who were taught using the same content, but with
multimedia instruction that did not adhere to a specific theoretical design framework. Results for general education
students mirrored those for students with LD. Students also completed a satisfaction measure following instruction with
multimedia and expressed overall agreement that CAPs are useful for learning vocabulary terms.

Keywords
vocabulary, multimedia learning, quantitative, research method

Given pervasive negative outcomes for large numbers of
students with specific learning disabilities (LD; see
Newman et al., 2011), it is important for researchers to
continue to develop, test, and disseminate theories and
interventions that support the cognitive and academic
learning needs of ado- lescents with LD (Scammacca et
al., 2007; Scruggs, Mastropieri, Berkeley, & Graetz, 2011;
Swanson, 2009). Specifically, interventions should be
grounded in theory and empirical findings related to the
cognitive processes of ado- lescents with LD when
interacting with academic tasks (Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs,
Lambert, & Hamlett, 2011; Johnson, Humphrey, Mellard,
Woods, & Swanson, 2010). In addition, designers of new
interventions should carefully note the demands of specific
content areas and identify the component skills that
underlie these learning tasks given perceived and known
needs of students with LD (Archer & Hughes, 2011;
Deshler & Shumaker, 2006; Pressley & Harris, 2006).
Multimedia technology offers an avenue for researchers
and practitioners to purposefully build instruc- tional
materials that meaningfully convey subject-specific
content while simultaneously supporting students’ learning
needs and motivation to learn (Kennedy & Deshler, 2010).
The purpose of special education is to provide specially
designed instruction to help students with exceptionalities
access and make progress in the general education
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on February 12, 2015
curriculum (King-Sears & Bowman-Kruhm, 2010, 2011;
Zigmond, 2006). Special and general education teachers
frequently face limitations with respect to their own
content knowledge, pedagogical repertoire, and cognitive
resources when juggling realities of teaching (e.g., large
class sizes, limited planning time, accountability pressures,
behavioral challenges) with the demands of designing and
delivering individualized instruction (Feldon, 2007;
Kennedy & Ihle, 2012; McKenzie, 2009). Thus, educators
may benefit from interventions that are designed
specifically to address the unique learning needs of
students with LD and that are packaged to deliver
evidence-based instruction in a wide variety of content
areas without adding significantly to the already heavy
load that teachers carry (Berkeley, Mastropieri, & Scruggs,
2011). The purpose of this article is to describe the results
of the first experimental test of an emerging, multimedia-
based instructional intervention that may help teachers of
students with exceptionalities provide
1
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
2
University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
Corresponding Author:
Michael J. Kennedy, University of Virginia, Curry School of
Education, PO Box 400273, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
Email: MKennedy@Virginia.edu
 Kennedy et al.
specially designed instruction that supports vocabulary
learning within the general curriculum.
Identifying Academic Demands to
Inform Instruction for Students
With LD
In this article we define students with LD using the defini-
tion of the National Joint Committee on Learning
Disabilities (1991). Specifically, students with LD who
have significant difficulty acquiring and using skills and
knowledge related to reading are the subgroup of interest.
The rationale for adopting this definition is, in content-area
classrooms, most content demands are tied to reading pro-
cesses and the accompanying cognitive processing tasks
(Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). Students who have
inherent difficulty learning from texts are at a substantial
disadvan- tage for finding success on typical measures of
academic proficiency (Roberts, Torgesen, Boardman, &
Scammacca, 2008). In addition, given traditional general
education instructional settings at the secondary level, it is
unlikely a student with LD who struggles with reading will
receive the type and amount of evidence-based reading
instruction needed to improve reading skill and make
progress within the content’s standards (Kennedy & Ihle,
2012; Mastropieri et al., 2005). It is for this reason that we
explore multimedia as a tool for packaging and delivering
evidence-based vocabulary instruction for students with
LD. Multimedia provides educators with an opportunity to
shape instruction in any needed configuration to meet the
demands of the content (Clark, 2009) and also the needs of
the learner (Kennedy & Deshler, 2010; Mayer, 2011).
Effective Vocabulary Instruction
Vocabulary knowledge is an example of a high-leverage aca-
demic skill (Ebbers & Denton, 2008) and is correlated with
comprehension (RAND Reading Study Group, 2002) and
other processing tasks required within secondary-level
coursework (Roberts et al., 2008). Helping students under-
stand the context-based and often multiple meanings of
words so they can comprehend and use words when reading
or during other language-rich situations is the primary goal
of vocabulary instruction at the secondary level (Baumann,
Kame’enui, & Ash, 2003). Thus, for students with LD, sig-
nificant attention is needed to determine ways to gain sus-
tained engagement with new vocabulary words and concepts
embedded within general education courses (Ebbers &
Denton, 2008; Jitendra, Edwards, Sacks, & Jacobson, 2004).
Key interventions for vocabulary instruction include
(a) helping students become aware of the semantic parts of
words (Bos & Anders, 1990), (b) dedicating instructional
time to teaching word parts and meanings (Bryant,
Goodwin, Bryant, & Higgins, 2003; Nagy, Berninger, &
23
Abbott, 2006; Reed, 2008), and (c) explicitly teaching
strat- egies for forming connections between semantically
related terms (Baumann et al., 2003; Graves, 2006). Two
categories of vocabulary instruction are necessary to help
translate these themes into practice: (a) teaching the
definitions of terms and (b) teaching students the skills and
strategies needed to decipher word meanings (Graves,
2006; S. A. Stahl & Kapinus, 2001). These two types of
instruction are referred to as nongenerative and generative
teaching strate- gies, respectively (Harris, Shumaker, &
Deshler, 2011).
For students with LD, both direct instruction in word
meanings (nongenerative) and building capacity through
the use of strategies (generative) are generally needed for
successful learning (Bryant et al., 2003; Ebbers & Denton,
2008; Harris et al., 2011; Jitendra et al., 2004).
Unfortunately, in practice, the primary methods used to
teach vocabulary terms and concepts to students include
mentioning the defi- nition during lecture, expecting they
will pick up words’ meanings through reading, and having
students look up terms in the dictionary (Kennedy &
Wexler, 2013; Lesaux, Harris, & Sloane, 2012). Although
reasons why teachers do not use evidence-based practices
for vocabulary instruction are not well understood (see
Jitendra et al., 2004), we hypothesize the creation and
introduction of instructional technology that contains
embedded evidence-based instruc- tion may provide one
section of the bridge needed to span the divide between
research and practice.
Use of Multimedia in Vocabulary
Instruction for Students With LD
Given the cognitive needs of adolescents with LD during
content-area learning tasks, instructional materials should
not be left to chance with respect to their audio and visual
makeup. For example, few videos that instructors purchase
or download to use during instruction are likely to adhere
to a validated instructional model and be appropriate for
stu- dents with LD (Kennedy, 2011; Kennedy & Wexler,
2013). Multimedia provides educators with a unique
opportunity to control every second of instruction by way
of planning and selecting the audio and visuals that a
learner receives (Mayer, 2011). However, this control
alone is never suffi- cient to guarantee effective instruction
(Clark, 2009). Instead, instruction should reflect and
incorporate existing evidence-based instruction for a given
content demand, but also scaffold cognitive processes so
the learner’s cognitive load capacity is not overwhelmed
(Kennedy & Deshler, 2010). With that said, the largest
limitation of the existing research on instructional
technology is the scarcity of detail describing the “looks
and sounds” of instruction (Clark, 2009; Mayer, 2011).
To illustrate our point regarding the need to carefully
script and shape the “looks and sounds” of multimedia
instruction, we offer Richard Mayer’s (2009) cognitive
24
theory of multimedia learning (CTML) and accompanying
instructional design principles (Mayer, 2008) as a specific
and applied framework to guide practice. This framework
consists of 12 evidence-based practices for instructional
design (Mayer, 2008) but should not be considered an evi-
dence-based practice on its own for teaching students with
disabilities. Instead, this framework is a logical starting
point for anchoring instructional practices that have evi-
dence for delivering a specific type of instruction (e.g.,
vocabulary instruction).
In the following discussion, we use Mayer’s model to
deconstruct a sample video from the Khan Academy
(www. khanacademy.org) to illustrate how validated
instructional design principles, such as those from Mayer,
are commonly violated by multimedia acquired via the
web. In addition, we criticize Mr. Khan’s video for its lack
of adherence to evidence-based practices that are
appropriate for individu- als with LD. To be true and fair,
these videos are not in any way intended for teaching
students with LD; however, as teachers use them in that
vein (see Fulton, 2012), the criti- cism is justified, and
needed. Following this deconstruc- tion, we detail how
Mayer’s model is jointly leveraged along with evidence-
based practices for vocabulary instruc- tion to create the
intervention tested in this study, content acquisition
podcasts (Kennedy, Lloyd, Cole, & Ely, 2012; Kennedy &
Wexler, 2013).
Designing Quality Instruction Using
Multimedia
Mayer’s CTML
CTML is a learner-oriented instructional theory and
empiri- cally validated design process intended to guide
the process of creating effective multimedia-based
instruction (Mayer, 2009). Mayer’s CTML is an applied
theory in that he intends instructional designers and other
educators to leverage understandings of how people use
visual and auditory inputs when creating new multimedia
for various learning tasks. Specifically, his model is
operationalized through 12 principles of instructional
design that function together as a framework to limit
cognitive load and maximize human capacity to learn
(DeLeeuw & Mayer, 2008). Each of Mayer’s principles is
supported by at least 3 experimental studies of its
effectiveness and as many as 17 (Mayer, 2008, 2011).
Figure 1 reports the number of studies and mean effect
size for each principle based on Mayer’s program of
research in this field. For additional detail on each
principle and the empirical research supporting this
framework, please see Mayer (2009).
Although Mayer’s theory is well respected, some
researchers have questioned its comprehensiveness. To
illustrate, Astleitner and Wiesner (2004) point out that the
CTML does not specifically address the impact of motiva-
tion on a learner’s cognition (p. 11), instead holding to a
Journal of Learning Disabilities 48(1)
highly bounded and process-based description of learning
and cognition. This is an important limitation, as multime-
dia can affect learners’ cognitive and emotional interests in
unpredictable ways depending on their prior experiences
and knowledge and other variables, such as mood (Harp &
Mayer, 1997). In other words, any motivation that occurs
during multimedia instruction will function to either con-
sume or enhance a viewer’s limited cognitive processes.
This is currently unaccounted for in Mayer’s model. Given
that researchers in special education have long reported the
impact of motivation on the performance of students with
disabilities (e.g., Guthrie & Davis, 2003), this is an impor-
tant aspect of multimedia instruction to be explored in
future research.
In the following discussion we use Mayer’s applied the-
ory to illustrate our call for caution when adopting
multime- dia for use in teaching students with LD and
demonstrate how the intervention tested in this article
reflects cognitive science and relevant evidence-based
practice. In addition, we utilize a simple satisfaction
measure as a proxy for moti- vation to gain preliminary
perspective on whether students with LD report being
motivated to learn using this new instructional tool.
Deconstruction of Freely Available
Internet Videos Used to Teach Students
With LD
As noted, it is important to deconstruct any example of
multimedia that a general or special education teacher
might opt to use with students with (and without) LD.
Although deconstruction of videos on the Internet (e.g., the
Khan Academy or YouTube) for this purpose is to some
extent unfair because of their purpose (or lack thereof), as
special educators, it is our job to help shed light on
potential mis- matches between student learning needs and
instructional materials potentially being used to teach them
(Kennedy & Wexler, 2013). In addition, we have the
responsibility to ensure students with disabilities receive
evidence-based, individualized instruction that addresses
the goals and objectives noted within their individualized
education pro- gram (IEP; Zigmond, 2006). Multimedia
that does not meet this standard should not be used.
Figure 2 lists Mayer’s (2008) 12 instructional design
principles and a side-by-side comparison of the extent to
which a sample video from the Khan Academy (http://
www.khanacademy.org/humanities/history/euro-hist/v/
french-revolution--part-1) adheres to these principles.
Figure 1 is the rubric used in this study to evaluate the
extent to which multimedia adhere to Mayer’s instructional
design principles.
After review, to a large extent, the sample video from
the Khan Academy does not adhere to Mayer’s principles
for creating multimedia. Given its long length (17:05),
signifi- cant number and use of history-specific
vocabulary terms,
Kennedy et al. 25

Research-Based Instructional Design Principles

(Mayer, 2009) Rubric for Evaluating Multimedia Instructional Materials

Coherence Principle 1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3

ES = .97, 14 Studies Includes Excess Some Irrelevant Content Standard Met
Irrelevant
Signaling Principle 1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3
ES = .52, 6 Studies Lacks Explicit Cues Some Cues Provided Standard Met

Redundancy Principle 1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3

ES = .72, 5 Studies Extensive Text Occasional Redundant Text Standard Met

Spatial Contiguity Principle 1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3

ES = 1.12, 5 Studies Words and Pictures Some Content Not Standard Met
Not Near Each Other Closely Aligned
Temporal Contiguity Principle 1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3
ES = 1.31, 8 Studies Audio & Text Some Misalignment Standard Met
Misalignment
Modality Principle Does Not Use Audio/Visuals Uses Audio/Visuals
ES = 1.02, 17 Studies
Segmenting Principle 1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3
ES = .98, 3 Studies Excessive Length Contains Explicit Breaks Standard Met
& No Explicit Breaks But is Excessively Long
Pretraining Principle 1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3
ES = .85, 5 Studies No Advance Organizer Limited Use of Standard Met
Or Hierarchy of Content Pretraining Strategies
Multimedia Principle Not Multimedia Standard Met
ES = 1.39, 11 Studies
Personalization Principle Not Personalized Standard Met
ES = 1.11, 11 Studies*
Voice Principle 1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3
* Formal Narration Some Formal Standard Met
Some Conversational
Image Principle 1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3
* Images Are Vague &/or Most Images Clear Standard Met
Blurry

Figure 1. Mayer’s Instructional Design Principles as Rubric for Evaluating Multimedia Instructional Materials.
Note. The 11 studies for the personalization principle include the voice and image principles; they are separated here for the purpose of guiding
instructional design.

lack of explicit instructional cues, redundant use of on-
screen text, and constant presence of visuals (pictures and
text) that do not correspond to the narration, according to
Mayer’s principles, this video will contribute extraneous
cognitive load—especially to a viewer unfamiliar with the
content being presented.
In addition, this video does not make use of evidence-
based practices known to help students with LD learn con-
tent. For one, the video contains substantial content about
the French Revolution. To illustrate, the narrator
repeatedly uses history-specific language conventions and
vocabulary terms without explicitly defining them. This
content may be difficult to organize and internalize for
many learners given
the broad scope of this multifaceted topic. The narrator
uses a pedagogy of telling, which can be explicit, but falls
short of recommendations for explicit instruction noted by
Archer and Hughes (2011) and is not strategic, as noted by
Deshler and Shumaker (2006) and others (see Pressley &
Harris, 2006). There is a substantial assumption of prior
knowledge without explicit references to other videos that
may contain the information. The video lacks any advance
organization that follows a hierarchical ordering system
that might help facilitate a learner’s engagement with the
content (see Dexter, Park, & Hughes, 2011). In summary,
this video does not provide individualized instruction as
required by stu- dents’ IEPs.
26
Research-Based Instructional Design Principles
(Mayer, 2008; 2009)
Coherence - Instructional materials are enhanced
when irrelevant or extraneous information is excluded
Signaling - Learning is enhanced when explicit cues are
provided that signal the beginning of major elements
Redundancy - Inclusion of extensive text (transcription)
on screen along with spoken words and pictures
hinders learning. Carefully selected words or short
phrases, however, augment retention
Spatial Contiguity - On screen text and pictures should
be presented in close proximity to limit eye shifting
Temporal Contiguity - Pictures and text should shown
on screen should correspond to the audio
presentation
Modality - People learn better from spoken words and
pictures than they do from pictures and text alone
Segmenting - People learn better when multimedia
presentations are divided into short bursts as
opposed to longer modules
Pretraining - People learn better when given an
advance organizer or preliminary instruction for the
content being introduced
Multimedia - People learn better from pictures and
spoken words than from words alone
Personalization - Narration presented in a
conversational style results in better engagement and
learning than more formal audio presentations
Voice - People learn better when narration is clearly
spoken with respect to rate and accent
Image - People learn better when images are
non- abstract, and clearly represent the content
being presented
Figure 2. Mayer’s 12 Instructional Design Principles and Corresponding Evaluation of Sample Video from the Khan Academy.
Innovation for Multimedia-Based
Vocabulary Instruction
In the present study, an intervention called content acquisi-
tion podcasts (CAPs) is tested for the purpose of
evaluating its effect on vocabulary performance of
adolescents with and without LD. CAPs are multimedia-
based instructional modules created using Mayer’s (2008)
instructional design principles. For example, Figure 3
presents Mayer’s model, with a description of how CAPs
reflect each of these 12 instructional design principles. In
contrast to the sample video from the Khan Academy,
CAPs ensure all images (text and pictures) correspond to
the content being pre- sented, narration is limited to
essential content, and a for- mula is used with respect to
helping students develop a routine for recognizing the
structure of each video (see
http://tecplus.org/files/download/19).
Journal of Learning Disabilities 48(1)
Sample Khan Academy Video Principle Met?
There is no obvious attempt to constrain No
narration to essential content
There are not explicit signals to cue the No
viewer’s attention to key segments or
points
Redundant, on-screen text is used throughout No
the video
On-screen text and images are continuously No
spread across the screen
The same images remain on the screen for No
the duration of the video. Once on-screen
text is added, it is not removed
Pictures and narration are used Yes
The video is not broken into segments, its No
running time is 17:04
The video begins with a statement of No
introduction but there is no further
orientation to its structure
The video contains pictures and narration Yes
The narrator uses a conversational tone Yes
throughout the video
The narration is not unusual with respect to Yes
rate or accent
The pictures shown on screen are not Yes
abstract, and represent the core content
Another contrast with the Khan Academy video is that
each CAP contains evidence-based vocabulary instruc-
tional elements for one critical vocabulary term and lasts
approximately 2 minutes. An example CAP can be viewed
at www.vimeo.com/39293791. Six specific instructional
practices, grounded in the empirical literature on vocabu-
lary instruction (e.g., Bryant et al., 2003; Ebbers &
Denton, 2008; Jitendra et al., 2004), constitute a menu of
practices embedded into the instructional routine used
within CAPs. These include (a) promoting word
consciousness (e.g., pronunciation, spelling, syllables,
prefix, suffix, root words; Reed, 2008), (b) providing
direct instruction of word meanings (Archer & Hughes,
2011), (c) providing guided practice and scaffolding
(Dexter et al., 2011),
(d) providing instruction that promotes awareness of
closely related terms (Graves, 2006), (e) using the key-
word mnemonic strategy (Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Levin,
Kennedy et al.
Research-Based Instructional Design Principles (Mayer,
2008; 2009)
Coherence - Instructional materials are enhanced when
irrelevant or extraneous information is excluded
Signaling - Learning is enhanced when explicit cues are
provided that signal the beginning of major elements
Redundancy - Inclusion of extensive text (transcription)
on screen along with spoken words and pictures
hinders learning. Carefully selected words or short
phrases, however, augment retention
Spatial Contiguity - On screen text and pictures should be
presented in close proximity to limit eye shifting
Temporal Contiguity - Pictures and text should shown on
screen should correspond to the audio presentation
Modality - People learn better from spoken words and
pictures than they do from pictures and text alone
Segmenting - People learn better when multimedia
presentations are divided into short bursts as opposed to
longer modules
Pretraining - People learn better when given an advance
organizer or preliminary instruction for the content being
introduced
Multimedia - People learn better from pictures and spoken
words than from words alone
Personalization - Narration presented in a conversational
style results in better engagement and learning than more
formal audio presentations
Voice - People learn better when narration is clearly spoken
with respect to rate and accent
Image - People learn better when images are non-abstract,
and clearly represent the content being presented
Figure 3. Mayer’s 12 Instructional Design Principles and Corresponding Evaluation of Sample content acquisition podcast (CAP).
1987), and (f) providing a statement of purpose/rationale
for why the student needs to learn a given term or concept
(Deshler & Shumaker, 2006). These six elements of effec-
tive vocabulary instruction constitute a checklist used to
create CAPs (see Kennedy, Lloyd, et al., 2012). When
combined with Mayer’s instructional design principles,
the use of these evidence-based practices for vocabulary
instruction may form the base for a multimedia-based
practice that can be tested for use with students.
The keyword mnemonic strategy is utilized within
CAPs given its strong empirical record for improving
vocabulary performance in various content areas (see
Mastropieri, Scruggs, Bakken, & Whedon, 1997;
Mastropieri, Sweda, & Scruggs, 2000; Scruggs et al.,
2011; Scruggs, Mastropieri, Berkeley, & Marshak, 2010)
and use of imagery, which lends itself to multimedia-based
instruction (Austin, 2009). This is critical because
empirical evidence in the field of vocabulary instruction
shows that teachers should use a blend of methods,
including explicit and strategic
27
Sample CAP - https://vimeo.com/39293791 Principle Met?
The CAP only contains information relevant to Yes
the history term/concept being presented
There are recurring explicit cues to signal the Yes
beginning of a new section (e.g., definition,
synonym, antonym, mnemonic)
The CAP only contains carefully selected key Yes
text
The on-screen text and pictures are presented Yes
in close proximity to one another
Pictures and text correspond to the audio Yes
presentation
Pictures and narration are used Yes
The CAP is 2:52 long Yes
The CAP begins with an explicit statement of Yes
purpose and an advance organizer for the
term
The video contains pictures and narration Yes
The narrator uses a conversational tone Yes
throughout the video
The narration is not unusual with respect to Yes
rate or accent
The pictures shown on screen are not Yes
abstract, and seem to represent the core
content
instruction, to achieve maximum learning effects (Bryant
et al., 2003; Ebbers & Denton, 2008; Jitendra et al., 2004).
One limitation of CAPs that use the keyword mnemonic
strategy is that there is not an automated rehearsal mecha-
nism built in, which is an important element of this
strategy (Mastropieri et al., 1987). Although not used in
this way during this study, practitioners who use CAPs in
the future should follow up with students to ensure the
rehearsal of the keyword and definition is provided.
In this study, CAPs were produced using Microsoft’s
PowerPoint (see Kennedy, Hart, & Kellems, 2011, and
Kennedy & Thomas, 2012, for specific production steps).
Although CAPs differ slightly from the textbook defini-
tion of podcasts (audio recording or synced audiovisual
recording uploaded to the Internet), our rationale for
referring to this learning tool as podcasts is marketing
to general education teachers. In other words, because
most practitioners know what podcasts are, and possibly
use generic podcasts in their teaching, we argue that
28
including podcast in the name of this new tool may facili-
tate adoption and usage. In addition, although not specifi-
cally used in this way during this study given our research
questions, we intend for CAPs to be uploaded to the web,
and downloaded by students for use on their iPad, iPhone,
or other portable device.
Thus, the purpose of this experimental study is to
explore the use of CAPs as a tool to improve vocabulary
learning for adolescents with LD enrolled in rigorous
secondary- level coursework. Four configurations of CAPs
with embedded evidence-based vocabulary instruction
were tested to determine the most efficient and effective
combi- nation of multimedia and vocabulary instruction:
(a) explicit instruction alone, (b) the keyword mnemonic
strategy alone,
(c) combination of explicit and strategy (keyword mne-
monic strategy) instruction, and (d) explicit instruction
without adherence to Mayer’s model. In summary, CAPs
were used to answer these research questions: To what
extent does multimedia instruction that adheres to various
instructional design principles and is combined with evi-
dence-based vocabulary instruction promote vocabulary
learning for adolescents with and without LD? Do students
who learn using various forms of CAPs report satisfaction
with this learning method?
Method
Setting and Participants
The University Human Subjects Committee, the partici-
pating school district’s research review board, the princi-
pal of the school, parents of all students, and the students
gave permission to conduct this research. The school dis-
trict is located in an urban, Midwestern community of
146,867 residents. The researchers recruited two world
history teachers responsible for teaching 12 total sections
of world history to approximately 300 students to partici-
pate in the study. A total of 278 urban high school stu-
dents (9th to 12th graders) enrolled in a world history
course participated in the study. African American stu-
dents represented the largest ethnic group (67.5%),
Caucasian students were the next largest group at 21.9%,
and Hispanic students constituted 8.1%. Of the 278 par-
ticipants, 52% were female, 48% were male, and 91%
were in 10th grade. The mean age of participants was 16.7
years. At the time of the study, the selected high school
had a student enrollment of 987, 78% of whom received
free and/or reduced-price lunch. Permission to collect
individual socioeconomic status could not be obtained
from the school district’s human subjects review board.
However, given that nearly every 10th grader in the
school is enrolled in one of the 12 sections of world his-
tory participating in this project and 78% of students at
this school received free or reduced-price lunch, we
Journal of Learning Disabilities 48(1)
assumed that approximately three quarters of students
received free or reduced-price lunch.
Two groups of students participated: (a) students with
LD in a specific area related to reading (n = 30) and
(b) students without disabilities and students who receive
special education services for a reason other than a reading
disability (n = 248). All students in the LD group had an
IEP stemming from a diagnosis of specific learning
disability related to reading, which manifests as difficulty
conducting cognitive processes necessary for reading.
These 30 stu- dents were in the 10th grade at the time of
the study and had a mean age of 16.9 years. In terms of
demographic charac- teristics, 80% were male and 20%
were female; 63.3% were African American, 26.7% were
Hispanic, and 10.0% were Caucasian. The mean Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children–IV IQ score for the 30
students with LD was 93.4 (SD = 9.3). Furthermore, the
students scored homoge- neously on the reading subtests
(Word Reading, Reading Comprehension, and
Pseudoword Decoding) of the Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test–Second Edition. Using grade-based
norms, the students’ mean standard score for the Word
Reading subtest was 68 (SD = 4.3), which is the second
percentile. The mean standard score for the Reading
Comprehension subtest was 63 (SD = 9.1), which is the
first percentile; and the mean standard score for the
Pseudoword Decoding subtest was 66 (SD = 4.8), which is
also the first percentile. Using grade-based norms, the
mean reading composite score for these 30 students was
176 (SD = 18.2), which translates into a standard score of
51 and less than the first percentile.
All students received daily special education services
embedded within their core academic content classes
taught by a general education teacher (e.g., social studies,
science, mathematics, and language arts) and also had a
study skills course taught by a special educator. Although
some students without LD also had an IEP (primarily
students with an emotional/behavioral disorder diagnosis),
they were grouped with the students without disabilities
for the pur- pose of this study’s activities and analyses. The
rationale for this decision is the desire to study the effects
of the inter- vention on students who have documented
disabilities spe- cific to the demands of reading.
Using a table of random numbers, researchers randomly
assigned students into one of four experimental conditions.
Two stratification variables proportionately sorted students
into the four groups: disability status (LD or not LD) and
achievement status (high, typical, low). The researchers
used students’ first-semester GPA in world history to sort
students into one of three levels of achievement status: (a)
high achiever—85% or above, (b) typical achiever—84%
to 70%, and (c) low achiever—69% and below. The
researchers strat- ified students by achievement status
given the expectation that high achievers would likely
learn more vocabulary con- tent than typical or low
achievers regardless of how they are
Kennedy et al. 29
ing the given term is important, (b) direct instruction of
taught. Therefore, it was important to proportionately
distrib- ute these students across the four experimental
conditions.

Methods for Creating CAPs

CAP adherence to Mayer’s CTML. Two reviewers each
with 20 hours of experience in producing and evaluating
CAPs for a previous study (e.g., Kennedy & Thomas,
2012) used a production rubric to independently score the
CAPs for the present study (see Figure 1). Reviewers
completed one rubric per CAP (n = 30) to gauge adherence
to Mayer’s instructional design principles. Therefore,
reviewers used understanding of these principles and their
judgment to complete this task. Feedback from the
reviewers informed revisions prior to use in the study.
Interscorer reliability across the reviewers was 95%. The
researcher made revi- sions based on the feedback and
then invited reviewers to review the CAPs a second time.
CAPs were not used in the study until all concerns were
satisfied.

Differences among the four experimental conditions.

Grounded in the empirical literature for teaching
vocabulary to stu- dents with LD (e.g., Bryant et al., 2003;
Ebbers & Denton, 2008; Jitendra et al., 2004), researchers
made the decision to test effects on student learning when
explicit instruction and the keyword mnemonic strategy
are provided in isola- tion and then combined. Although
most researchers agree that combinations of explicit and
strategy instruction are the most effective for teaching
students with LD, for the pur- pose of this experiment this
assumption is tested by the use of multimedia, and thus
these two types of vocabulary instruction are tested
together and in isolation.
Researchers created four types of multimedia-based
vignettes that contain various combinations of evidence-
based practices for the purpose of determining the most
powerful combination of theoretically valid instructional
design features and practices for learning vocabulary
terms. The four experimental conditions are (a) CAPs,
containing explicit instruction only (EI); (b) CAPs with the
keyword mnemonic strategy only (KMS); (c) CAPs
containing explicit instruction and the keyword mnemonic
strategy (EI
+ KMS); and (d) instructional videos with the same audio
narration as students in the EI group, but did not adhere
visually to Mayer’s design principles (NM). The CAPs for
the first three conditions feature judicious use of on-screen
text, frequent use of vivid images, and meticulously
scripted words delivered during narration. The vignettes
created for the fourth condition are generic enhanced
podcasts (audio synced with text-based slides), and do not
adhere to Mayer’s principles, but make use of the same
audio narration used in the EI condition’s videos.
Students assigned to watch CAPs that incorporate EI
viewed vignettes that provide (a) rationales for why learn-
word meanings, (c) awareness of closely related terms,
(d) guided practice and scaffolding, and (e) word
conscious- ness (e.g., identify morphemes in terms).
Students in the KMS condition also received (a) rationale
for why learning that term is important, (b) direct
instruction in word mean- ing, (c) rationales for why the
KMS is a good tool for remembering vocabulary terms,
and (d) an acoustically similar remembering word
(keyword) along with an image of the keyword
interacting with the definition of the term. Students in the
combined EI and KMS condition saw CAPs with all of
the aforementioned instructional practices and the same
narration. Students in the final, NM condition saw
multimedia-based vignettes that contain the same content
and narration as the EI condition, but the content was
pre- sented as text only, instead of images and occasional
text. The same two independent reviewers noted above
scored each CAP to ensure each practice was embedded
within each CAP. Interscorer reliability across reviewers
was 98%. With respect to length, students in the EI and
NM condi- tions watched vignettes that contain the exact
same audio track and thus have the same running time.
Students in the KMS condition watched vignettes that,
on average, are approximately 10 seconds shorter than
the EI CAPs. Students in the EI + KMS watched the
longest vignettes, which, on average, are approximately
30 seconds longer than the EI CAPs. Although students
in the EI + KMS viewed the longest CAPs and thus,
received the most instruction, there is reason to
hypothesize that “bigger is not necessarily better” for
students with LD when it comes to duration of
instruction (Deshler & Shumaker, 2006; Swanson,
2001, 2009). Therefore, an important question
undertaken by this study is related to the duration of multi-
media-based instruction for teaching vocabulary terms and
concepts. With that said, it is not trivial that the students
in the EI + KMS group received more instruction for
each term. Any significant differences between the groups
would at least in part be attributable to this difference in
duration
of instruction.

Selection of vocabulary terms/concepts. Researchers and

two teachers recruited to participate in this study selected
30 vocabulary terms and/or concepts to be turned into
CAPs. This group reviewed a list of all relevant vocabu-
lary terms/concepts for the World War I unit based on a
review of the course textbook, district curriculum, and
state standards. The selection of terms was guided by two
principles. First, researchers selected vocabulary terms
that are similar in terms of complexity and conceptual
density. Table 1 contains the list of terms. The participat-
ing teachers used their professional judgment and prior
experience teaching this unit to judge a term’s complexity
and density and ease of student acquisition. The second
selection criterion was that terms needed to be represented
clearly with visuals and translated into a keyword for use
30 Journal of Learning Disabilities 48(1)

Table 1. List of Vocabulary Terms/Concepts Used to Create

Content Acquisition Podcasts. requirement within most high school history courses
(VanSle- dright, 2008) and research on curriculum-based
Alliance measures (e.g., Espin, Busch, Shin, & Kruschwitz, 2001).
Nationalism Answer choices were selected based on length (number of
Entente words), relevance to the correct answer (as distractors), and
Industrializatio language density (ease of reading).
n Militarism The construction of this instrument reflects best
Ultimatum practice for MC item construction as detailed by
Diplomat Haladyna, Downing, and Rodriguez (2002). Three experts
Neutrality in world history reviewed each of the MC items for
Stalemate
difficulty, clarity, and errors in content or grammar and
Casualties
provided comments for revision. The two teachers in the
Convoys
study also reviewed the items and provided comments for
Morale
revision. Cronbach’s alpha for the MC items at posttest
Pandemic
Reparations was .87, thereby demon- strating adequate internal
Conscription consistency for use in this study.
Contraband
Atrocities Open-ended instrument. The second instrument was open
Armistice ended (OE). Its purpose is to evaluate students’ ability to
Containment produce a definition for the term in writing and also to
Suburbanizatio probe deeper knowledge of terms (e.g., synonyms, ant-
n onyms) and any contextual understanding based on knowl-
Collectivization edge provided within each CAP. Specifically, the OE
Subsidize instrument asked students to “write what you know” about
Nonalignment each of the 30 terms/concepts. The score range for the OE
Theocracy instrument is 0 to 60. To add structure, the test form pro-
Apartheid vided space for students to write (a) the definition, (b) a
Proliferate synonym for the term, (c) an antonym, and (d) any addi-
Surrealism tional information they know about the concept. Thus, this
Fascism instrument required much more than simple matching, a
Appeasement form of vocabulary assessment that has been widely criti-
Pacifism cized (K. A. Stahl & Bravo, 2010). The alpha level for the
OE instrument was .95. An answer key of acceptable
responses for each component was developed and used in
within the KMS. The teachers provided scripts for defini-
scoring. The researcher and each of the two teachers
tions and related content that students needed to learn
scored student responses using a rubric of acceptable
based on the curriculum and standards. Finally, terms were
answers for the purpose of establishing interscorer
selected based on the teachers’ course calendars to ensure
reliability. Following discussion, 100% agreement was
the first in-class exposure to the terms/concepts would
achieved.
come through this study’s research activities.
Satisfaction survey. A satisfaction survey was given to all
Measures Used to Evaluate Student participating students following completion of the mainte-
Vocabulary Performance and Satisfaction nance probe. The survey took approximately 5 minutes to
complete and contains eight Likert-type items. The scale
Multiple-choice instrument. The researchers created a for the Likert-type items was 1 to 10, with a score of 1
multi- ple-choice (MC) instrument with 30 items to desig- nating a response of strongly disagree and a score
measure stu- dents’ ability to use their knowledge to of 10 designating that the respondent strongly agreed with
identify correct definitions for important vocabulary terms the statement or question. Students were free to select any
and concepts from a world history unit. The score range is score along the range from 1 to 10. The use of a 10-point
0 to 30. The MC instrument includes items that correspond scale allows larger differentiation and interpretation of
to the 30 vocabu- lary terms/concepts selected by the two responses than is possible with typical 5- or 7-choice
history teachers. The stem for each item simply includes Likert-type items (Fowler, 2009).
the term and the appropri- ate verb (e.g., “Imperialism is . .
The items in the survey reflect two constructs relevant
.”). The answer choices and distractors for each item are to this study’s research questions: (a) ease and function of
definitions from the text- book glossary. The decision to
technology within CAPs and (b) usefulness of CAPs for
use definitions as answer choices and distractors learning new vocabulary terms/concepts in world history.
corresponds to a common reading
Because students remained in the same experimental group
Kennedy et al.
throughout the study, they were asked to note which of the
four groups they were in for the experiment. This allowed
survey responses to be sorted by group and analyses of
responses based on the version of the CAPs that were
watched. The survey was reviewed by three doctoral stu-
dents, who were asked to provide feedback on wording of
questions, order of questions, and overall quality of the
instrument. Feedback was used to make updates to the sur-
vey. The reliability alpha for the survey was .73.
Procedure for Watching CAPs and
Taking Assessments
The first author and the two teachers used a checklist to
ensure fidelity during research activities. The checklist
con- tains procedures for the research activities for each
day, including the script for directions that was read to
students. To begin research activities, students completed
a pretest during their regularly scheduled class, which is
the same instrument as the posttest and maintenance
probes. Students were informed that the pretest would not
count toward their grade, but would be used as a class
work/participation grade. One week later, students
watched an orientation CAP that introduced this format
of instruction and cued them to its various features.
Students watched CAPs at individual laptop terminals
while wearing headphones. CAPs were loaded onto the
school’s intranet and sorted into password- protected
folders for each experimental group. Students watched
a total of 10 CAPs during one class period. The first
author and teacher circulated the room to ensure stu-
dents were watching the CAPs and not navigating to other
websites or programs.
After finishing the fifth video, students were to raise
their hand and close their laptop. The teacher handed
students the OE instrument, which asked students to (a)
write the defini- tion for each term/concept, (b) provide a
synonym/antonym, and (c) provide any other related
information for each term/ concept. When students
completed this instrument, they raised their hands and the
teacher collected the paper and handed the students the
MC assessment. The decision to give students the OE
instrument first was purposeful to elim- inate the
possibility of being cued to the answer with the MC
instrument. After completing the MC items, students again
raised their hands, the paper was collected, and students
watched the next five CAPs, and the process repeated. In
sum, students watched a total of 30 CAPs, in the order of
10 per day across 3 days of the experiment.
Maintenance Procedure
The first author returned to the school approximately 3
weeks after concluding the posttest for all 30 vocabulary
terms to administer a maintenance probe to measure dura-
bility of learning using CAPs. Following the students’ ini-
tial learning of 30 terms using CAPs, the two teachers
31
retaught Terms 1 to 20 as a part of their required course
curriculum. The researcher did not monitor how the terms
were retaught to students. As a result, Terms 1 to 20 were
assessed only at posttest. However, Terms 21 to 30 were
not retaught or assigned as part of assignment during this
period of time. Thus, the maintenance probe consisted of
an MC test to evaluate student knowledge of Terms 21 to
30; the probe is the same as the posttest measure.
Research Design
Researchers conducted main and secondary analyses for
this study. There are two parts of the main analysis. In Part
1, the between-subjects factors for students with LD are
four approaches to delivering vocabulary instruction with
multimedia (EI, n = 7; KMS, n = 8; EI + KMS, n = 7; NM,
n = 8). The four groups are evaluated on a dependent mea-
sure with two levels: performance on the pretest and post-
test for Items 1 to 30 (evaluated using a 4 × 2 split-plot,
fixed-factor repeated measures ANOVA). To create the one
dependent variable score, researchers respectively stan-
dardized and then averaged student scores on the MC and
OE instruments. In the second part of the main analysis,
the between-subjects variables are the same as above; the
dependent measure has three levels: performance on the
pretest, posttest, and maintenance probes for Items 21 to
30 (evaluated using a 4 × 3 split-plot, fixed-factor repeated
measures ANOVA).
In the secondary analysis, the above analyses are
repeated, but for students without LD (between- and
within- subjects variables are the same; EI, n = 60; KMS,
n = 62; EI
+ KMS, n = 63; NM, n = 63). The reason for including this
secondary analysis here is twofold. First, because of the
small sample size and thus limited statistical power in the
four groups among students with LD, it is important to
con- firm observed results using a larger group (albeit with
stu- dents without LD). Second, if there were any effects
for any of the types of multimedia instruction when
comparing stu- dents without LD, that intervention would
potentially be more attractive to a general education
teacher.
Finally, results from the satisfaction survey were ana-
lyzed using quantitative data from the Likert-type items.
Responses are organized by group assignment and
compared to one another using a series of one-way
ANOVAs for the purpose of evaluating differences and/or
emerging trends that may be attributed to the different
versions of the CAPs.
Results
Main Analysis, Students With LD: Part 1
In this analysis, researchers conducted a 4 × 2 split-plot,
fixed-factor repeated measures ANOVA. The between-sub-
jects factor was group assignment (group), and the two
lev- els of the within-subject factor (time) were
performance on
32 Journal of Learning Disabilities 48(1)

Table 2. Raw Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Students With Learning Disabilities (LD) and Without LD (Not LD) on the
Multiple Choice and Open-Ended Pretest and Posttest (Terms 1–30) and Maintenance Instruments (Terms 21–30).

MC pretest OE pretest MC posttest OE posttest

M SD M SD M SD M SD
LD Terms 1–30
Group 1 (n = 7) 10.0 4.65 3.3 3.15 20.6 4.61 25.7 6.6
Group 2 (n = 8) 9.3 2.05 3.0 2.33 19.6 3.33 23.8 5.65
Group 3 (n = 7) 9.3 2.69 4.3 5.59 24.6 6.10 33.4 6.99
Group 4 (n = 8) 10.0 2.13 4.1 0.99 16.6 3.25 14.1 5.99
Not LD Terms 1–30
Group 1 (n = 60) 12.5 6.47 5.8 6.56 21.8 4.61 45.4 21.61
Group 2 (n = 62) 11.9 5.30 4.8 5.90 21.7 4.39 40.3 14.83
Group 3 (n = 63) 12.2 4.26 5.6 5.90 25.0 3.81 56.0 25.11
Group 4 (n = 63) 12.1 5.18 5.2 6.40 18.3 4.80 31.2 17.90
LD Items 21–30
Group 1 (n = 7) 2.9 1.68 0.00 0.00 5.7 2.36 5.6 2.03
Group 2 (n = 8) 1.9 1.45 0.00 0.00 6.4 0.92 6.3 2.12
Group 3 (n = 7) 2.0 1.15 0.43 1.13 8.1 1.57 8.7 1.11
Group 4 (n = 8) 2.5 0.93 0.37 0.52 4.1 2.10 3.3 3.32
Not LD Items 21–30
Group 1 (n = 60) 3.2 2.05 0.28 0.79 6.6 1.81 14.3 8.41
Group 2 (n = 62) 3.1 1.93 0.67 1.43 6.5 1.72 11.9 6.26
Group 3 (n = 63) 2.8 1.79 0.44 1.17 8.2 1.69 18.5 9.70
Group 4 (n = 63) 2.7 1.74 0.60 1.18 5.6 1.65 8.9 6.36

Note. The pretest and posttest MC has a score range of 0–30; the pretest and posttest OE has a score range of 0–60. The maintenance instrument has a
score range of 0–10 for MC and 0–20 for OE. LD = students with an LD in an area related to reading; MC = multiple-choice instrument; Not LD =
students without a learning disability in an area related to reading; OE = open-ended instrument.

the pretest and posttest for Terms 1 to 30. Levene’s test for
equality of variances was not significant for this
evaluation. Given the random assignment of students to
experimental
groups, there was no further need to statistically control for
between-group variance and differences. The raw score
means, standard deviations, p values, and effect sizes
(Cohen’s d) for the pretest, posttest, and maintenance
probe are listed in Tables 2 and 3. There was not a
significant main effect for group, F(3, 26) = 1.7, p = .187,
ω2 = .03, or time, F(1, 26) = > 1, p = .516, ω2 = .00;
however, the interaction between group and time, F(3, 26)
= 13.0, p < .000, ω2 = .26, was significant. Therefore, 27%
of the variance in this model is explained by the sum of
effects from the predictor variable (EI, KMS, EI + KMS,
NM) in the experiment.
To examine the direction and location(s) of the signifi-
cant interaction, researchers conducted post hoc pairwise
comparisons using Tukey’s honestly significant difference
(HSD) test. A Bonferroni correction was used to evaluate
the individual group differences at the two time points
(.05/2 = .025). These results demonstrate that there was
not a significant difference in scores between any group of
stu- dents with LD on the pretest; however, students with
LD in
the NM group Pos = −2.8, SD = 2.3; d = 1.97). No other
t
(M
post hoc comparisons were statistically significant at the
.025 level; however, the mean scores show the EI + KMS
group (MPost = 1.45, SD = 2.7) scored higher on the posttest
than the students with LD in the EI Pos = −0.92, SD = 1.5;
t
(M
d = 1.09) and KMS Pos = −1.6, SD = 1.6; d = 1.40)
t
(M
groups. These large effect sizes should be interpreted with
caution given the limited statistical power and use of a
researcher-created instrument; however, they do provide
preliminary evidence that for students with LD learning
these vocabulary terms using the full CAP model had an
impact on their learning.
Main Analysis, Students With LD: Part 2
In this analysis, researchers conducted a 4 × 3 split-plot,
fixed-factor repeated measures ANOVA. The between-
subjects factor was group assignment (group), and the
three levels of the within-subject factor (time) were perfor-
mance on the pretest, posttest, and maintenance probe for
Terms 21 to 30. Levene’s test for equality of variances was
not significant for this evaluation. However, Mauchly’s
the EI +KMS group Pos = 1.45, SD = 2.7) had signifi- test of sphericity was significant, Mauchly’s W = .551, p =
t
(M
cantly higher scores on the posttest than students with LD in .001; thus, Greenhouse–Geisser corrections are used to
Kennedy et al. 33

Table 3. Maintenance Mean Scores and Standard Deviations Secondary Analysis, Students Without LD: Part 1
for Multiple-Choice and Open-Ended Instruments.
To mirror the main analysis but with students without LD
MC instrument OE instrument (to help confirm findings given limited statistical power),
M SD M SD researchers again conducted a 4 × 2 split-plot, fixed-factor
repeated measures ANOVA. The between-subjects factor
LD Items 21–30
was group assignment (group), and the two levels of the
Group 1 (n = 7) 3.4 1.40 4.0 1.15
within-subject factor (time) were performance on the pre-
Group 2 (n = 8) 4.5 1.41 4.1 1.55
test and posttest for Terms 1 to 30. Levene’s test for
Group 3 (n = 7) 6.6 1.90 7.7 2.87
equality of variances was not significant for this
Group 4 (n = 8) 2.2 1.67 1.4 1.51
Not LD Items 21–30
evaluation. Given the random assignment of students to
Group 1 (n = 60) 4.8 2.08 7.6 6.77 experimental groups, there was no further need to
Group 2 (n = 62) 4.5 1.99 7.1 5.80 statistically control for between- group variance and
Group 3 (n = 63) 6.3 2.14 11.7 9.40 differences. The raw score means, stan- dard deviations, p
Group 4 (n = 63) 3.1 1.72 4.4 3.81 values, and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) for the pretest, posttest
and maintenance probe are listed in Tables 2 and 3. There
Note. The MC instrument has a score range of 0–10; the OE instrument was a significant main effect for group, F(3, 243) = 6.7, p
has a score range of 0–20. MC = multiple-choice instrument; NSWD =
< .001, ω2 = .05, and the interac- tion between group and
students without a learning disability (LD); OE = open-ended instrument;
SWD = students with LD. time, F(3, 243) = 25.3, p < .001, ω2
= .05. However, the evaluation for time, F(1, 243) = > 1, p
= .827, ω2 = .00 was not significant. Therefore, 10% of the
variance in this model is explained by the sum of effects
evaluate and interpret results. There was a significant main from the predictor variable (EI, KMS, EI + KMS, NM) in
effect for group, F(3, 26) = 6.3, p < .002, ω2 = .21, and the the experiment.
interaction between group and time, F(4.1, 52) = 8.9, p < To examine the direction and location(s) of the signifi-
.000, ω2 = .18. However, the effect for time, F(2, 52) = > cant interaction, researchers conducted post hoc pairwise
1, p = .460, ω2 = .00, was not significant. Therefore, 39% comparisons using Tukey’s HSD test. A Bonferroni
of the variance in this model is explained by the sum of correc- tion was used to evaluate the individual group
effects from the predictor variable (EI, KMS, EI + KMS, differences at the two time points (.05/2 = .025). In a
NM) in the experiment. repetition of findings from the main analysis, these results
To examine the direction and location(s) of the signifi- demonstrate that there was not a significant difference in
scores between any group on the pretest; however,
students without LD in the EI
cant interaction at maintenance, researchers conducted +KMS group (MPost = 1.8, SD = 2.4) had significantly higher
post hoc pairwise comparisons using Tukey’s HSD test. A scores on the posttest than students with LD in the NM
Bonferroni correction was used to evaluate the individual group Pos = −1.7, SD = 2.6; d = 1.41). No other post hoc
t
(M
group differences at the three time points (.05/3 = .017). comparisons were statistically significant at the .025 level;
Student performance on the posttest was evaluated for the however, the mean scores show the EI + KMS group (M
Post
30 vocabulary terms in the main analysis, and so for the = 1.8, SD = 2.4) scored higher on the posttest than the stu-
sake of brevity the results are not reported here for Items dents with LD in the EI (MPost = 0.30, SD = 2.6; d = 0.61)
21 to 30. and KMS Pos = 0.10, SD = 2.3; d = 0.74) groups. These
t
(M
At maintenance, students with LD in the EI +KMS group medium to large effect sizes should be interpreted with
(M = 1.1, SD = 1.2) had significantly higher scores on cau- tion given the use of a researcher-created instrument,
Maint
the maintenance probe than students with LD in the NM how- ever, they do provide corroborating evidence that
students
group (MMaint = −1.4, SD = 1.3; d = 2.40). No other post who learned these vocabulary terms using the full CAP
hoc
comparisons were statistically significant at the .017 level; model (EI + KMS) made gains in performance relative to
however, mean scores show the EI + KMS group (M = other students who did not receive the full intervention or
Maint
1.1, SD = 1.2) scored higher on the posttest than the stu- a different intervention.
dents with LD in the EI (MMaint = −0.87, SD = 0.75; d =
1.96) and KMS Main = −0.34, SD = 0.71; d = 1.45)
t
Secondary Analysis, Students Without LD: Part 2
(M groups.
These large effect sizes also should be interpreted with nary evidence that students with LD who learned using the
cau- tion given the limited statistical power and use of a full CAP model made gains in vocabulary performance.
researcher-created instrument; however, there is prelimi-
Again to mirror the main analysis for students with LD,
researchers conducted a 4 × 3 split-plot, fixed-factor
repeated measures ANOVA. The between-subjects factor
was group assignment (group), and the three levels of
the
34 Journal of Learning Disabilities 48(1)

within-subject factor (time) were performance on the pre-
test, posttest, and maintenance probe for Terms 21 to 30.
Levene’s test for equality of variances was not significant
for this evaluation. However, Mauchly’s test of sphericity
was significant, Mauchly’s W = .705, p = .001; thus,
Greenhouse–Geisser corrections are used to evaluate and
interpret results. There was a significant main effect for
group, F(3, 243) = 14.672, p < .001, ω2 = .10, and the
inter- action between group and time, F(4.6, 375) = 19.2, p
< .000, ω2 = .06. However, the effect for time, F(1.5,
375) = > 1, p = .914, ω2 = .00 was not significant.
Therefore, 16% of the variance in this model is explained
by the sum of effects from the predictor variable (EI,
KMS, EI + KMS, NM) in the experiment.
To examine the direction and location(s) of the signifi-
cant interaction at maintenance, researchers conducted post
hoc pairwise comparisons using Tukey’s HSD test. A
Bonferroni correction was used to evaluate the individual
group differences at the three time points (.05/3 = .017).
Student performance on the posttest was evaluated for the
30 vocabulary terms in the main analysis and so for the
sake of brevity will not be reported here for Items 21 to 30.
At maintenance, students with LD in the EI +KMS group
(MMain = 1.1, SD = 1.6) had significantly higher scores on
t
the maintenance probe than students without LD in the EI
(MMain = 0.10, SD = 1.3; d = 0.66), KMS (MMaint = −0.08,
t
SD = 1.3; d = 0.80), and NM (MMaint = −0.86, SD = 0.99;
d = 1.47) groups. In addition, students without LD in the
EI and KMS groups, respectively, significantly
outperformed students without LD in the NM group (d =
0.81; 0.69) at maintenance. These medium to large effect
sizes should also be interpreted with caution given the use
of a researcher- created instrument; however, this finding
corroborates the observed impact of the CAP intervention
for students with LD noted above.
they do not have a difficult time learning new vocabulary
terms in history (M = 4.97, SD = 2.56); however, students
generally agreed that the CAPs helped them learn the
mean- ing of the terms (M = 7.38, SD = 2.06) and that the
CAPs prepared them to do well on the posttest and
maintenance probes (M = 6.91, SD = 2.16). Finally,
students in the EI + KMS and KMS only groups, on
average, agreed that the KMS is helpful in learning the
meaning of vocabulary terms (M = 7.58, SD = 2.19).
Post hoc analyses of student survey responses were
com- pleted using one-way ANOVAs. Tukey post hoc
compari- sons of the four groups’ survey responses for
Item 3 (The podcasts looked good) indicated that the
students in the EI + KMS group (n = 70, M = 8.53, 95% CI
= 8.11, 8.95), EI only
group (n = 68, M = 8.41, 95% CI = 7.96, 8.86), and KMS
only group (n = 70, M = 8.66, 95% CI = 8.31, 9.00) all
expressed significantly higher satisfaction with the visual
elements of the CAPs than did students in the NM group
(n
= 70, M = 7.26, 95% CI = 6.70, 7.81), p < .000, p < .002, and
p < .000, respectively. In addition, students in the EI +
KMS group (n = 69, M = 7.91, 95% CI = 7.42, 8.41)
expressed significantly higher satisfaction on Item 6 (The
podcasts helped me learn the meanings of the vocabulary
terms) than
students in the NM group (n = 69, M = 2.13, 95% CI = 6.26,
7.28, p < .006). Finally, students in the EI + KMS group (n
= 70, M = 7.69, 95% CI = 7.26, 8.11) expressed significantly
higher satisfaction on Item 7 (After watching the podcasts I
CAPs was interesting (M = 6.32, SD = 2.16). On average,
students reported that

Student Satisfaction Survey

Table 4 reports the data from the satisfaction survey.
Because students completed the survey at the conclusion
of the maintenance probe, and students with LD were
embed- ded within the general education classroom for the
experi- ment, it was not possible to isolate those students’
survey responses. Thus, their responses are included
within the larger group disaggregated by treatment
condition (EI + KMS, EI only, KMS only, NM).
Based on the results of the survey, few students
reported having technical problems when watching CAPs
(M = 0.08, SD = 0.276). On average, students reported that
the narrator was easy to understand (M = 8.59, SD = 1.78)
and the CAPs looked good with respect to pictures and on-
screen text (M = 8.2, SD = 1.95). Mean scores demonstrate
that students ten- tatively agreed that the content of the
was ready to do well on the quizzes) than did students
in the NM group (n = 70, M = 6.17, 95% CI = 5.64,
6.69, p < .000).

Discussion
General and special education teachers should seek
oppor- tunities to use various instructional techniques
and strate- gies to support individual learning needs of
students with LD (Swanson, 2001), especially during
rigorous second- ary-level content-area coursework
(Deshler & Shumaker, 2006). Although it can be
difficult to fully understand the complex learning
needs of students with LD and then translate that
understanding into individualized instruction given
competing demands (e.g., curriculum pacing, plan-
ning), this is the meta-space educators must occupy to
sup- port the learning of children with the significant
learning needs (Kennedy & Deshler, 2010; King-
Sears & Bowman- Kruhm, 2010; Zigmond, 2006).
The results of this study confirm the need to leverage
evidence-based teaching practices with delivery
mechanisms that do not solely pres- ent content in a
novel way. Instructional technology, such as CAPs,
may provide a functional mechanism for design- ing
and delivering this type of individualized instruction.
This does not preclude the use of technology in an
assistive role (see King-Sears, 2009, for an excellent
discussion) but does provide compelling rationale to
invest resources into ways instructional technology
can deliver individualized
Kennedy et al. 35

Table 4. Student Satisfaction Survey Results.

EI + EI onlya KMS only NMa

KMS
M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n
Q1: Did you experience any technical problems when watching the podcasts?
0.06 0.00 70 0.04 0.207 67 0.10 0.302 70 0.13 0.337 70
Q2: The speaker on the podcast was easy to understand.
8.9 1.36 70 8.3 2.24 68 9.0 1.32 70 8.1 1.90 70
Q3: The podcasts looked good (the pictures, words, etc.).
8.5 1.78 70 8.4 1.85 68 8.7 1.46 70 7.3 2.32 70
Q4: The information in the podcasts was interesting to me.
6.5 2.16 70 5.9 2.58 67 6.8 1.89 70 6.0 1.88 69
Q5: Learning new vocabulary terms in world history is difficult for me.
4.9 2.30 70 5.2 2.91 68 5.2 2.30 70 4.5 2.65 68
Q6: The podcasts helped me learn the meanings of the vocabulary terms.
7.9 2.06 69 7.2 2.09 68 7.6 1.81 70 6.8 2.13 69
Q7: After watching the podcasts I was ready to do well on the quizzes.
7.1 2.22 70 6.7 2.17 68 7.7 1.80 69 6.2 2.19 70
Q8: The keyword helped me remember the meaning of the term.
7.4 2.18 70 7.7 2.20 68

Note. Item scores range from 1 to 10. EI = explicit instruction; KMS = keyword mnemonic strategy; NM = non-Mayer.
a
Does not include Item 8, which was answered only by students in Groups 1 and 3.

instruction for a variety of critical content areas. Teachers

should use curriculum-based measures to evaluate the
Limitations
ongoing progress of students to determine the extent to
This study has several limitations. First, although an
which current approaches to instruction are working
experi- mental design was used, only 279 students
(Espin et al., 2001). Using a progress monitoring system
participated. In addition, only 30 (9.3%) students with LD
like that described by Espin and her colleagues (2001)
participated. Although these are not small numbers in
makes par- ticular sense for evaluating the impact of
social science research, the students were enrolled in one
vocabulary instruction delivered using multimedia.
high school, thus potentially representing an overly
The results of this study are consistent with those of
homogeneous group.
pre- vious studies in terms of (a) positive effects of
Second, the researcher created all of the CAPs used in
multimedia- based instruction based on Mayer’s CTML
the study. Although the CAPs were created using a
and instructional design principles (Kennedy, Ely, et al.,
produc- tion rubric based on Mayer’s CTML and a
2012; Kennedy et al., 2011; Kennedy & Thomas, 2012),
checklist for effective elements of vocabulary instruction
(b) successful use of multimedia to teach vocabulary terms
and were reviewed by experienced colleagues, important
and concepts to adolescents (Xin & Rieth, 2001), and (c)
questions remain about the ability of other teachers or
augmented perfor- mance on measures of vocabulary
researchers to create CAPs. This is an important question
learning for adolescents with LD following use of a blend
to be answered by future research. Furthermore,
of explicit and strategic approaches (Bryant et al., 2003).
instruction was provided using individually issued laptops
In addition, this study pro- vides preliminary evidence that
and headphones to all stu- dents. The availability of
extends existing theories of multimedia learning and
laptops on a 1:1 ratio is unlikely in many schools;
evidence-based practices for vocabulary instruction into
therefore, the controlled nature of this exper- iment to
new space in the name of aug- menting academic skills and
some extent limits its external validity. One possi- ble way
outcomes for all students. With that said, some researchers
to address this limitation is the template and process used
have criticized Mayer’s theory (e.g., Astleitner & Wiesner,
in this study could be captured in an application that would
2004) for its lack of explanation regarding the impact of
allow teachers and students to easily create their own
motivation on a learner’s cognition. Important next steps
CAPs (or other multimedia).
for this line of research are to further explore the extent to
Third, the researchers created the measures used in the
which the motivation to learn using multimedia of students
study. Standardized measures of vocabulary knowledge for
with LD correlates and/or predicts achievement.
specific content areas (e.g., world history) do not exist, and
other standardized measures were not appropriate for use
in the study given the research questions. Furthermore,
36
given the limited scope of this experiment with respect to
terms that were taught as well as the duration of the study
(approximately 3 weeks), growth on a standardized mea-
sure would likely be unachievable. An important question
to be addressed by future research is the extent to which
CAPs used across a semester or entire year may affect
achievement.
Implications for Future Research and Practice
Despite limitations and the preliminary nature of its find-
ings, this study has important implications for research and
practice. With respect to research, future studies should
leverage Mayer’s CTML and instructional design princi-
ples to create and then test multimedia-based instructional
materials for a wide assortment of content areas. For
exam- ple, this study is restricted to vocabulary terms and
stu- dents enrolled in a world history course. Future
explorations should be expanded to other courses within
social studies (e.g., U.S. history) as well as other subject
areas that require substantial vocabulary knowledge (e.g.,
science, mathematics, foreign languages). In addition, in
this study the primary objective was to promote
vocabulary learning among students with LD; however,
students with other types of disabilities may also benefit
from multimedia instruction designed using validated
instructional design principles.
For reasons of experimental control, researchers used a
clinical approach in this first study of the utility of CAPs
to augment vocabulary knowledge. Future research to be
con- ducted in partnership with practitioners should
explore socially valid methods for using CAPs to deliver
vocabu- lary instruction. This may include teachers using
CAPs dur- ing large-group lectures or assigning students
to watch CAPs at home or during other study times in and
out of school. CAPs may then be utilized in response to
interven- tion frameworks as a Tier 1, 2, or 3 intervention.
Related to this, studies in which other researchers and
teachers create CAPs and evaluate their impact on student
learning should be conducted. Another interesting
opportunity to extend the validity of the intervention is for
students to participate in the production of CAPs.
Comparison of student perfor- mance on various
dependent measures following viewing CAPs created by
teachers, researchers, and students is important for future
research to address.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Journal of Learning Disabilities 48(1)
References
Astleitner, H., & Wiesner, C. (2004). An integrated model of
multimedia learning and motivation. Journal of Educational
Motivation and Hypermedia, 13, 3–21.
Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction—
Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford.
Austin, K. A. (2009). Multimedia learning: Cognitive individual
differences and display design techniques predict trans-
fer learning with multimedia learning modules. Computers
& Education, 53, 1339–1354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2009.06.017
Baumann, J. F., Kame’enui, E. J., & Ash, G. E. (2003). Research
on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, D.
Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of
research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed.,
pp. 752–785). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berkeley, S., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2011).
Reading comprehension strategy instruction and attribution
retrain- ing for secondary students with learning and other
mild dis- abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 18–
32. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022219410371677
Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocab-
ulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading
comprehension of junior-high learning disabled students.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 31–42. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/1510390
Bryant, D. P., Goodwin, M., Bryant, B. R., & Higgins, K. (2003).
Vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities:
A review of the research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26,
117–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1593594
Clark, R. E. (2009). Translating research into new instructional
technologies for higher education: The active ingredient pro-
cess. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 4–18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9013-8
Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Lambert, W., &
Hamlett, C. (2011). The cognitive and academic pro-
files of reading and mathematics learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 79–95. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0022219410393012
DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three
measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable mea-
sures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 100, 223–234. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.223
Deshler, D. D., & Shumaker, J. B. (2006). High school students
with disabilities: Strategies for accessing the curriculum.
New York, NY: Corwin Press.
Dexter, D. D., Park, Y. J., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). A meta-ana-
lytic review of graphic organizers and science instruction
for adolescents with learning disabilities: Implications for
the intermediate and secondary science classroom. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 204–213. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00341.x
Ebbers, S. M., & Denton, C. A. (2008). A root awakening:
Vocabulary instruction for older students with reading dif-
ficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 90–
102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00267.x Espin,
C. A., Busch, T. W., Shin, J., & Kruschwitz, R. (2001).
Curriculum-based measurement in the content areas: Validity
Kennedy et al. 37
content area classroom. Learning Disabilities Research
of vocabulary-matching as an indicator of performance in
social studies. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
16, 142–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.00015
Feldon, D. F. (2007). Cognitive load and classroom teaching:
The double-edgedswordofautomaticity. Educational
Psychologist, 42, 123–137.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520701416173
Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Fulton, K. P. (2012). 10 reasons to flip. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2),
20–24.
Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning &
Instruction. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling
read- ers in middle school through an engagement model of
class- room practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19,
59–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573560308203
Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A
review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for class-
room assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15,
309–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1503_5
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learn-
ing from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction
between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 89, 92–101. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.92
Harris, M. L., Shumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2011). The
effects of strategic morphological analysis instruction on the
vocabulary performance of secondary students with and
with- out disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 17–
34.
Jitendra, A. K., Edwards, L. L., Sacks, G., & Jacobson, L. A.
(2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction for
students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70,
299–322.
Johnson, E. S., Humphrey, M., Mellard, D. F., Woods, K., &
Swanson, H. L. (2010). Cognitive processing deficits and
students with specific learning disabilities: A selective meta-
analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33,
3–18.
Kennedy, M. J. (2011). The effects of content acquisition
podcasts on vocabulary performance of adolescents with
and without learning disabilities (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Kansas, Lawrence. Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/874964597
Kennedy, M. J., & Deshler, D. D. (2010). Literacy instruction,
technology, and students with learning disabilities: Research
we have, research we need. Learning Disability Quarterly,
33, 289–298.
Kennedy, M. J., Ely, E., Thomas, C. N., Pullen, P. C., Newton,
J. R., Ashworth, K., & Lovelace, S. P. (2012). Using multi-
media tools to support teacher candidates’ learning. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 35, 243–257.
http://dx/doi. org/10.1177/0888406412451158
Kennedy, M. J., Hart, J. E., & Kellems, R. O. (2011). Using
enhanced podcasts to augment limited instructional time in
teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 34, 87–105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0888406410376203
Kennedy, M. J., & Ihle, F. M. (2012). The old man and the
sea: Navigating the gulf between special education and the
 & Practice, 27, 44–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
5826.2011.00349.x
Kennedy, M. J., Lloyd, J. W., Cole, M., & Ely, E. (2012).
Specially designed vocabulary instruction in the content
areas: What does high quality instruction look like?
Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(1), 7. Retrieved from
http://tecplus.org/articles/ article/1/0
Kennedy, M. J., & Thomas, C. N. (2012). Effects of content
acqui- sition podcasts to develop preservice teachers’
knowledge of positive behavioral interventions and supports.
Exceptionality, 20, 1–19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2011.611088
Kennedy, M. J., & Wexler, J. (2013). Using the “T” in STEM
to improve literacy skills. Teaching Exceptional Children,
45(4), 26-33.
King-Sears, M. E. (2009). Universal design for learning:
Technology and pedagogy. Learning Disability Quarterly,
32, 199–201.
King-Sears, M. E., & Bowman-Kruhm, M. (2010). Attending to
specialized reading instruction for adolescents with mild dis-
abilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42, 30–40.
King-Sears, M. E., & Bowman-Kruhm, M. (2011). Specialized
reading instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities:
What special education co-teachers say. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 172–184.
Lesaux, N. K., Harris, J. R., & Sloane, P. (2012). Adolescents’
motivation in the context of an academic vocabulary
interven- tion in urban middle school classrooms. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56, 231–240.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ JAAL.00132
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Bakken, J. P., & Whedon,
C. (1997). Using mnemonic strategies to teach informa-
tion about U.S. presidents: A classroom-based investiga-
tion. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 13–21. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/1511089
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J. E., Nordland, J.,
Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K. (2005). Case studies in co-
teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and chal-
lenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 260–270.
http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/10534512050400050201
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Levin, J. R. (1987).
Learning- disabled students’ memory for expository prose:
Mnemonic versus nonmnemonic pictures. American
Educational Research Journal, 24, 505–519.
Mastropieri, M. A., Sweda, J., & Scruggs, T. E. (2000). Putting
mnemonic strategies to work in an inclusive classroom.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 69–74.
http:// dx.doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1502_2
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-
based principles for the design of multimedia instruction.
American Psychologist, 63, 760–769. http://dx.doi/10.1037/
0003066X.63.8.760
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511811678
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. New
York, NY: Pearson.
McKenzie, R. G. (2009). Elevating instruction for secondary-
school students with learning disabilities by demystifying
the highly qualified subject matter requirement. Learning
38 Journal of Learning Disabilities 48(1)

Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 143–150. http://dx.doi.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Berkeley, S., & Graetz,
org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00288.x
J. E. (2011). Do special education interventions improve
Nagy, W., Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2006). Contributions
learning of secondary content? Remedial and Special
of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes
Education, 31, 437–449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/07419325
of upper elementary and middle school students. Journal
08327465
of Educational Psychology, 98, 134–147. http://dx.doi.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Berkeley, S., & Marshak,
org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.134
L. (2010). Mnemonic strategies: Evidence-based practice
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1991).
and practice-based evidence. Intervention in School and
Learning disabilities: Issues on definition. Asha, 33(Suppl.
Clinic, 46, 79–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105345121037
5), 18–20.
4985
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Huang, T., Shaver, D., Knokey, A.-
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary
M., Yu, J., & Cameto, R. (2011). Secondary school
liter- acy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy.
programs and performance of students with disabilities. A
Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40–59.
special topic report of findings from the National
Stahl, K. A., & Bravo, M. A. (2010). Contemporary classroom
Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2) (NCSER
vocabulary assessment for content areas. Reading Teacher,
2012–3000). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
63, 566–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.7.4
Education, National Center for Special Education Research.
Stahl, S. A., & Kapinus, B. A. (2001). Word power: What
Retrieved from www.nlts2.org/
every educator needs to know about teaching vocabulary.
reports/2011_11/nlts2_report_2011_11_complete.pdf
Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Pressley, M., & Harris, K. R. (2006). Cognitive strategies
Swanson, H. L. (2001). Research on interventions for adolescents
instruction: From basic research to classroom instruction. In P.
with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes
A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational
related to higher-order processing. Elementary School
psychology (2nd ed., pp. 265–286). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Journal, 101, 331–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/499671
Erlbaum.
Swanson, H. L. (2009). Neuroscience and RTI: A complemen-
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understand-
tary role. In E. Fletcher-Jamzen & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.),
ing toward an R&D program in reading comprehension.
Neurophysiological perspectives on learning disabilities in
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office
the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and
of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational
interven- tion (pp. 28–53). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Resources Information Center.
VanSledright, B. (2008). Narratives of nation-state, histori-
Reed, D. K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology interventions and
cal knowledge, and school history education. Review
effects on reading outcomes for students in grades K–12.
of Research in Education, 32, 109–146. http://dx.doi.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 36–49. http://
org/10.3102/0091732X07311065
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00261.x
Xin, J. F., & Rieth, H. (2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instruc-
Roberts, G., Torgesen, J. K., Boardman, A., & Scammacca, N.
tion for elementary school students with learning disabilities.
(2008). Evidence-based strategies for reading instruction of
Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1,
older students with learning disabilities. Learning
87–103.
Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 63–69.
Zigmond, N. (2006). Reading and writing in co-taught sec-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1540-5826.2008.00264.x
ondary school social studies classrooms: A reality check.
Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler,
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22, 249–268. http://dx.doi.
J., Ruetebuch, C. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Interventions
org/10.1080/10573560500455711
for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with
implications for practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research
Corporation, Center on Instruction.