Research-Based Strategies for Teaching Content to Students ...kihd.gmu.edu/assets/docs/kihd/activ/new/Evmenova... · for students with intellectual disabilities who, regardless of

Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2011, 46(3), 315-325© Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Research-Based Strategies for Teaching Content to Studentswith Intellectual Disabilities: Adapted Videos

Anna S. Evmenova and Michael M. Behrmann' George Mason University

Abstract: Teachers are always seeking any visual and/or auditory supports to facilitate students ' comprehensionand acquisition of difficult concepts associated with academic content. Such supports are even more importantfor students with intellectual disabilities who, regardless of their abilities and needs, are required to have accessand active participation in subject-based general education curriculum. This article describes an arsenal ofresearch-based best practices that suggest enhancing existing video clips featuring academic content with suchadaptations as video "chunking, " alternative narration, interactive video searching features, various types ofclosed captioning (e.g., highlighted text and picture symbol-based), visual and verbal cues that support contentcomprehension and retention by students with special needs. Corroborating research and practical recommen-dations for classroom implementation are provided for each of the adapted features described.

Recent legislative mandates: the No Child LeftBehind Act (NCLB, 2001) and the Individualswith Disabilities Education Improvement Act(IDEIA, 2004) emphasize an access to the gen-eral education curriculum for students withdisabilities and their participation in yearlystatewide assessments. No longer is it enoughto just bring students with special needs alongand place them in the back of the regulareducation classrooms. Force of these laws en-sures active participation of students with dis-abilities in general curriculum activities along-side peers with and without disabilities as wellas appropriate attainment of annual goalsaligned with general standards (Browder etal., 2004; Dymond & Orelove, 2001). Schoolsare held accountable for academic perfor-mance of all students, including those withintellectual disabilities, which is measured bythe adequate yearly progress (AYP) in read-ing, math and science, even if the standard-ized evaluation procedures are alternated andmodified to address students' abilities andneeds (Browder et al., 2007). With require-ments for challenging curriculum and highexpectations, little research has been con-

Correspondence concerning this article shouldbe addressed to Anna S. Evmenova, George MasonUniversity, 4400 University Drive, MS 1F2, Fairfax,VA.

ducted on facilitating these requirements(Agran, Cavin, Wehmeyer, & Palmer, 2006;Wehmeyer, Lance, & Bashinski, 2002).

Few existing studies show promising trendsin performances of students with developmen-tal disabilities in reading and listening com-prehension, as well as in acquiring factual in-formation in various content areas (Browder,Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Al-gozzine, 2006; Turner & Alborz, 2003; Weh-meyer, Lattin, & Agran, 2001). Students wxhmoderate to severe intellectual disabilitiesdemonstrated performance improvements insuch complex subject areas as physical sci-ence, geography, and life science aligned withschool and state standards (Agran et al.,2006). In response to NCLB (2001), furtherwork is being conducted to ensure acquisitionof academic content and skills through strat-egies and activities commonly employed ingeneral education instruction (Freeman &Alkin, 2000; McDonnel, Johnson, Polychronis,& Risen, 2002; Ryndak & Alper, 2003).

Unfortunately, evidence also exists that stu-dents, especially those with more severe dis-abilities, continue to be educated outside thegeneral education currictiltim (Agran et al.,2006; Wehmeyer et al., 2002). It points outthat educators may require assistance in de-signing instructional activities appropriate forstudents' special needs to foster their access to

Adapted Videos / 315

the academic instruction (Browder et al.,2007). Thus, there is a continuous need forevidence-based interventions that supportgeneral curriculum instruction especially forlearners with disabilities. This article presentsresearch-based best practices to provide con-tent-based instruction to students with devel-opmental disabilities and to facilitate theirprogress in academics.

The value of video media as a rich source ofinformation allowing students to easily createmental models, thus improving comprehen-sion, has been identified by many researchers(Boone, Higgins, & Williams, 1997; Kroeger,Schultz, & Newsom, 2007; Xin & Rieth, 2001)for students witb and without special needs.For example, secondary students with learn-ing disabilities demonstrated significant im-provements with videodisk technologies, rang-ing between 1 and 2.1 effect sizes in overallachievement (Maccini, Gagnon, & Hughes,2002). Modeling and self-modeling tech-niques utilizing linear video for students withautism spectrum disorders (Bellini & Akul-lian, 2007; McCoy & Hermansen, 2007), aswell as students with other developmental dis-abilities (Hitchcock, Dowrick, & Prater, 2003)showed to be effective in acquisition, mainte-nance, and generalization of various social,behavioral, and functional skills. The capacityof video features to focus students' attentionon relevant stimuli, repetitiveness, controlla-bility, learning without heavily relying on text,and intrinsic motivation provided by video-based instruction were determined to posi-tively affect the acquisition and maintenanceof various skills by students witb intellectualdisabilities (Hine & Wolery, 2006; Mecbling,Gast, & Gronin, 2006; Reagon, Higbee, & En-dicott, 2006).

Tbe innovative strategies described in thisarticle take video-based instruction a little fur-ther to ensure supports for individuals withvarious abilities, needs, and learning prefer-ences. Thus, the appropriate academic videoclips should then be enhanced with necessaryfeatures appropriate for specific students andtheir characteristics. For example, teachersmay add: (a) Shorter video clips with alterna-tive narration for students who have difficultywith comprehension and retention of largeamounts of complex information; (b) Interac-tive features such as searching the video for

answers for all students, especially those withattention deficits benefiting from the activeengagement with the material; (c) Glosed cap)-tioning for those who are able to read buthave listening comprehension challenges; (d)Highlighted captions for students lacking fo-cus on the words and key concepts; (e) Picturesymbol-based captions for non-readers whoare familiar with picture symbol systems; and(f) Visual and verbal cues for all studentspointing out the relevant stimuli in the video.These are just some examples of adaptationsthat can further enhance video instruction.More detail and evaluation of any evidencesustaining effectiveness of video adaptationsas well as practical recommendations forteachers to effectively implement adapted vid-eos in every day teaching in any subject areaand for any grade level are as follows.

(a) Video in the Classroom: Video "Chunking"and Alternative Narration

Undoubtedly, video format is vivid and inter-esting. It involves moving graphic representa-tions and provides rich sources of informationthat facilitate comprehension and longer re-tention of even tbe most complex contexts(Ayres & Langone, 2008; Boone et al., 1997).Consistent with the Paivio's (1986) dual chan-neling theory, video-enhanced instruction uti-lizes both visual and auditory cues resulting inimproved learning outcomes. Video applica-tions nowadays include interactive computer-based programs with embedded video clips torepresent ideas and contexts (e.g., Chambers,Cheung, Madden, Slavin, & Gifford, 2006);video simulations as tools for teaching com-plex scientific concepts (e.g., Jackson, 1997);programs as alternatives to using animals(e.g., Strauss & Kinzie, 1994). Various videosegments available on videotapes, DVDs,and/or over tbe Internet are widely integratedfor introducing and/or reviewing topics in allsubject areas (e.g., Boster et al., 2006).

Linear and interactive clips are widely usedfor teaching appropriate social behaviors(e.g., Kroeger et al., 2007), daily living skills(e.g., Gihak, Alberto, Taber-Doughty, &Gama, 2006), and employment tasks (e.g.,Mechling & Ortega-Hurndon, 2007) to stu-dents with intellectual disabilities. Althoughlimited, video-based instruction has also been

316 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2011

integrated in teaching younger students withdevelopmental disabilities sight word recogni-tion (Lee & Vail, 2005), reading fluency, com-prehension (Hitchcock et al., 2004), and gen-erative spelling (Kinney, Vedora, & Stromer,2003). Video instruction can be a great sup-plement for all students but is proven to aug-ment instruction for students with disabilitieswho may not respond to traditional text-basedmodes of teaching (Wise & Groom, 1996).Beneficial features of video medium and thelatest developments in streaming technologyfurther promote acceleration of video integra-tion in general education curriculum. Accessto video over the Internet, watching withoutdownloading, searchable by keyword andtopic databases of clips, make video instruc-tion more accessible, manageable, and realis-tic to use (Boster et al., 2006; Van Horn,2001).

Thus, teachers simply need access to avideo, particularly one correlated with appro-priate curriculum and/or learning standardsin any content area. Several existing videoservices such as Unitedstreaming hy the DiscoveryChannel (www.unitedstreaming.com) andCAW Student Neius (www.cnn.com/studentnews) offer clips already aligned witb genericand state-linked standards. In fact a servicelike unitedstreaming allows teachers searchingexisting video database by subject, grade level,or curriculum standards.

Tbe existing body of research achieves thesalience suggesting breaking longer clips intoshorter segments. Thus, one of the easiestways to adapt videos would include video"chunking." The presentation of content insmaller segments allow students especiallythose with intellectual disabilities to better fo-cus on tbe \ddeo content and do not seem tooverload tbe cognitive comprehension and re-tention processes. So, teachers can eithersearch for smaller videos or segment longervideos into shorter clips with widely availableand relatively intuitive programs such as Movie-Maker (PC platform) and iMovie (Macintoshplatform). Even within the smaller chunks,teachers could stop the video from time totime to allow for dynamic discussions of fac-tual information and/or for modeling the in-ferential skills by making connections with stu-dents' past experiences. In addition, if thevideo narration appears to be too difficult for

students to understand, teachers can simplyturn off the sound during some of the videochunks and verbally narrate, thus adjusting itto students' ability levels.

(b) Interactive Features and Anchored Instruction

Active engagement adds an additional dimen-sion of action to icons and words already ex-isting in video format. This provides threeforms (actions, icons, words) of representa-tion of the same material essential for success-ful computer learning and instruction, result-ing in increased video value (Lee & Vail, 2005;Presno, 1997). Video instruction was greatlytransformed following the development andincreased interest in "anchored instruction."This new approach to learning was conceptu-alized by the Cognition and TechnologyGroup at Vanderbilt University and wasfounded on situated cognition as well as cog-nitive apprenticeship (CTGV, 1993, 1996).The new concept suggested interactive learn-ing situated in realistic and meaningful con-texts within multimedia anchors to supportstudents' pattern recognition skills. Designprinciples indicate the sequence of t\pical in-structional activities that can be observed in AIclassrooms. The instruction begins with alarge group watching a 10-15 minute mainstory that ends in a major problem. Learnersare then expected to generate the subprob-lems comprising the overall dilemma andsearch the video for the necessary informationto solve it After students present and justifytheir solution ideas, they may watch a conclu-sion of the adventure to discover how thecharacter solved the same problem. Followingextensive research on the effectiveness of AIfor developing higher-order skills and creativeproblem solving skills that easily transfer tonew situations (CTGV, 1993; 1996; Xin &Rieth, 2001), further concept of EnhancedAnchored Instruction (EAI) for students withdiverse abilities was developed (Bottge, 2001).Thus, regular AI was enhanced by engaging inapplied, hands-on projects completed by stu-dents upon the instruction via an anchor. Sim-plified versions of EAI programs designed spe-cifically for lower-achieving students with andwithout disabilities were examined in a seriesof studies (e.g., Bottge, Rueda, Serlin, Hung,& Kwon, 2007; Bottge, Heinrichs, Mehta, &


i Why grecnhouM altecf* |

3 OrMniKNiM QMM oom« tronn

4 Mo«lt «« rMpomKtt.

5. SM» CNMoi MiM and gloM wwniflg I

6L DinQtf ol gkibal wuinwig {

1

1

y

4.

í.

«.

»WM«*.. " ,\

Ulm

« W BTMmi

Gr«enhchj««

MCPMpt*«*«

• ^

OwBW o( 1

warning?

gasc^ con* U&n ^ ^ ^

» & # 1' • !

Figure 1. Examples of a different video searching screen created in Camtasia program.

Hung, 2002) revealing drastic improvementsin students' performance in variotis subjectareas.

Few studies explored applications of AI withstudents with intellectual disabilities. Ele-ments of AI were incorporated into instruc-tional strategies aiming for acquisition of so-cial and functional skills. They providedindividtials with meaningful contexts allowinginteraction with the environment (Ayres &Langone, 2002; Mechling & Langone, 2000;Simpson, Langone, & Ayres, 2004). Moreover,enhanced videos, designed to incorporate in-teractive elements, appear to contribute evenmore to increases in students' achievement. Infact, a few studies even suggest that students'performance improves as the levels of interac-tivity and physical engagement within the vid-eo-based program increase.

Following tlie principles of AI, teachers canadapt existing videos to include interactivesearching features. Thtis, after viewing thewhole clip students may get an opportunity tosearch the video for essential informationand/or answers. In this case, at the end of thevideo they are offered a single video frame withphrases corresponding to key points and/orcomprehension questions. All phrases appearon the screen at the same time in a numberedvertical list. The phrases may include text onlyor words supported by picture symbols. Eachphrase is accompanied by a hyj>erlink in the

form of a red right side arrow (see Figtire 1). Byclicking the red arrow hyperlink with a mouse,the students are taken to the segment of thevideo tliat corresponded to the selected phraseand contained the relevant information and/oran answer to the target question.

For more technologically sophisticated teach-ers, available tools for video editing are relativelyeasy to use. With such programs as Camtasia bythe Tech Smith (www.techsmith.com) or AdobePremiere (www.adobe.com), teachers can createhyperlinks embedded in the video to segmentsthat correspond to tlieir key points and/or com-prehension questions discussed during the les-son. Moreover, programs built in any PC orMacintosh desktop or portable computer (Movie-Maker and iMovie) enable teachers to easily de-velop timelines by placing clips or .segments insequence as well as create various menus andtransitions within the storyboard simtilating theinteractive video searching. Furthermore, creat-ing adapted and interactive videos for their stu-dents with various abilities and needs is possiblewitli such programs as Microsoß PowerPoint orHyperStudio by the Krwwled^ Adventures (www.

hypersttidio.com). Teachers can easily createsearching opportunities for students in Power-Point instead of using more complex video edit-ing programs by linking individual slides withvideo segments to a slide with phrases/questionsin either written text or picture symbol format


(c) Closed Captioning

In the last decade, the synchronized on-screentranscripts of television audio soundtrackshave become more common. According tothe Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990,each television set with a screen larger than 13inches must have a closed-captioned televisiondecoder btiilt-in (Captioned Media Program,2006; Kirkland, 1999; Linebarger, 2001). De-spite the fact that closed captioning was orig-inally designed to provide access to audio andvideo materials for people who are deafand/or hard of hearing, it has found alterna-tive applications in introducing and reinforc-ing reading skills to young children, adults,English language learners, and students withlearning disabilities (Bowe & Kaufman, 2001;Neuman & Koskinen, 1992). Captions add in-valuable support for viewing and understand-ing video content. Indeed, print and televisioncan complement each other creating multi-sensory environments for motivational learn-ing through auditoiy, visual, and written cues.

Despite the argument of distractibility, sev-eral researchers successfully employed closedcaptioning for teaching students at-riskand/or with learning disabilities as well as forimproving oral reading, word recognition,reading comprehension and retention (Kirk-land, 1995; Neuman & Koskinen, 1992; Line-barger, 2001). In fact, in Kirkland's sttidy, spe-cial education students benefited andpreferred captions, while general educationstudents reported easier understanding withimcaptioned videos. Closed captioning alsoappeared to have a favorable impact on aux-iliary behaviors of students with learning dif-ficulties and behavioral disorders. Aside fromthe fact that comprehension and word skillsmay significantly improve as a result of closedcaptioning, such intervention also positivelyafîects students' increased time on task, moti-vation and other attitude measures (Shea,2000).

The research on incorporation of closedcaptioning with persons with more severe dis-abilities is non-existent. However, based onthe survey of 359 randomly selected specialeducators acro.ss 45 states, a majority (86%) ofteachers believed in the potential value of us-ing closed-captioning in teaching studentswith no hearing impairments. Sixteen percent

would consider using this strategy with stu-dents with mental letardation (Bowe &: Katif-man, 2001). Indeed, a captioned video formatallows multiple and redundant repetitionsthat are consistent throughout an interven-tion, which can be of significance for somestudents with intellectual disabilities (Hine &Wolery, 2006; Reagon, Higbee, & Endicott,2007).

Regular closed captioning is the easiest tofind and use. Numerous video clips availablefrom Unitedstreaming service (www.tinitedstreaming.com), CNN Student Nnv.s (www.cnn.com/studentnews). Public Brtmdcasting Service{PBS; www.pbs.org/teachers), and many localbroadcasting stations enable teachers to easilyturn on and/or off available closed caption-ing. Even such video sharing Internet re-sources as YotiTube (www.youtube.com) andGoogle Video (http://video.google.com) be-gin to offer automatic captions. In addition,captions can be activated on any TV set. Thus,teachers can easily activate the textualprompts on top of any visual material takenfrom the broadcasting companies. In addi-tion, when using fiction or non-fiction clips ona specific topic available on DVD, educatorsalso have an easy access to captioning adapta-tions. Captions can be presented as upper-case, lowercase, or mixed white or black let-ters on a black, gray, or white backgroiuid.However, different dimensions of captionswere not found to produce any significanteffects on students' performance (Kirkland,1999).

By developing the idea of closed captioningfurther, highlighted captions may be a betteralternative for sttidents requiring additionalsupports. In his sttidy Kirkland (1995) usedhighlighted captions as one of the conditions.In this case, emphasized key concepts werefeatured in uppercase letters (see Eigure 2).Such captions are easy to create in any videoediting software (e.g., Camtasia) or in stichwidely nsed program as Minvsnft PowerPoint.Closed captioning with dynamic highlightingcommon for the majority of the text-to-speechassistive technology programs is anothervenue. Thus, the captions corresponding ver-batim to that narration may include wordshighlighted in any color as they are spokenout (see Eigure 2). When compared to typicaloptions, it is anticipated that the highlighted


Win«n IM buTi M M » gMM go oui n «V« w

Figure 2. Examples of a video with highlighted text captioning.

text captions might have the potential to bet-ter attract students' attention and increasecomprehension (Hecker, Burns, Elkind, El-kind, & Katz 2002; Pisha & Coyne, 2001). Inorder to support students with various abilitiesand needs even further, captions may includesuch accommodations as picture symbols.

(d) Picture-based Symbols

Symbols can be found throtighout environ-ments everywhere. They gtiide and supportthe understanding and navigation through fa-miliar and novel surroiuidings. There exists aplethora of symbol systems widely used in ed-ucational settings, which serve two main pur-poses: to provide access to alternative and aug-mentative communication (AAC) and tosupport learning, especially in inclusive set-üngs (Detheridge & Detheddge, 2002). Exist-ing picture symbol systems represent a contin-uum from simple pictorial representationsclosely resembling the concept of a word toabstract images requiring manipulation ofsymbols to create meaningful units (Jones,Long, &: Finlay, 2007). Some of the examplesinclude Rebus and Makaton symbols, Picto-gram Ideogram Communication (PIC) sym-bols and Blissymbols. Picture CommunicationSymbols (PCS) developed by Mayer-Johnson in-troduce images somewhat similar to Rebus

and Makaton symbols, however are more pic-torial in some instances, and thus easier tocomprehend.

Besides obvious communicative value, pic-ture symbols may also provide means for liter-acy instruction for students with severe learn-ing needs. Just like road signs guide drivers,picture symbols guide and clue readers to themeaning of words. Complementary nature ofpicture symbols provides academic opportuni-ties otherwise impossible by supporting unfa-miliar words (Biemiller & Siegel, 1997). Thus,picture symbols can be successfully used tofacilitate literacy by making content accessible(Detheridge & Detheridge, 2002) and provid-ing the bridge as they connect concrete pic-tures with abstract print. Overall, using sym-bols along with text enables students toparticipate in the classroom reading activitiespreviously unavailable (Slater, 2002).

Underachieving students with and withoutlearning disabilities appear to improve literaland inferential comprehension when usingpictorial material in conjtinction with writtentext (Jones et al., 2007) as well as listeningcomprehension by students with more severeintellectual deficits (Preis, 2006). Therefore itis believed that picture-based captions can fur-ther support students' with intellectual disabil-ities understanding of the video, anchoringtheir factual and inferential comprehension


Figure 3. Example of a video with full or key word picture symbol-hased captioning.

of the content in easy to understand line draw-ings (Walker, Munro, & Richards, 1998). Anysymbol system can be used to provide suffi-cient assistance in clarifying the meaning andtriggering the information recall of content-based informative videos. Picture symbols mayfurther enhance such existing video adapta-tions as closed captioning and provide addi-tional supports for comprehension to thosestudents who are low- and/or non-readers.Thus, either all words or only key phrases insuch captions may be accompanied with pic-tures symbols. Colored line drawings may bepositioned immediately above or below theword that they accompany.

It's easy to create picture-based captions us-ing any picture word processing program suchas Writing with Symbols (WWS) 2000 or Commu-nicate:SymWriler programs by Mayei-Johnson(www.http;//viiww.mayer-johnson.com) ; Pix-Writer or Picturelt by Slater Software Inc.(www.slatersoftware.com). Such picture .sym-bol-based captions can be inserted into thevideos within the video editing software (e.g.,Camtasia, Adobe Premier, see Figure 3). In turn,with the help of such program as MicrosofiPowerPoint, teachers can also easily enhancevideo chunks available on different pages withpicture symbol-based captions. Furthermore,sentence strips with picture symbols usedalong with the video can simulate symbol-based captions.

Another way to enhance existing clips withpicture symbols is to use them as a visual cueon the video screen. MovieMaker or iMovie pro-grams allow teachers to add such pictureand/or other symbol directly to the video (seeFigure 4). The additional feature such as as-sociating a picture symbol with a video chunkinserted into the slides can also be created in

Figure 4. Example of a video with picture symbol-based visual cues.


PowerPoint to focus and anchor students' com-prehension and retention.

(e) Descriptive Videos

Just like closed-captioning is used to provideaccess to media resources for people withhearing impairments, descriptive videos havebeen developed to assist those with visual im-pairments. Videos with such accommodationsare enhanced with audio descriptions of the\isual elements inserted into pauses in theoriginal narration (Fels, Udo, Diamond, &Diamond, 2006). Descriptive videos offer ob-vious benefits by providing otherwise inacces-sible visual information such as: descriptionsof landscapes, appearances, facial expressions,sources of sound effects, positions, and inter-nal emotions (Piety, 2004). Besides obviousbenefits as the only source of visual informa-tion, some researchers also examined thevalue of video descriptions as a tool for in-creasing listening comprehension of videocontent. Emerging research reports that com-prehension dramatically improves while theviewers found video descriptions enjoyable(Ely et al., 2006; Schmeidler & Kirchner,2001).

Following the principles of universal design,\ideo materials with inserted descriptions maybe applicable to students with many difficul-ties in the classroom, including those with LDand attention difficulties (Curry, Cohen, &Lightbody, 2006). V'ideo descriptions mayhelp students focus on essential information.It may become an important element of videoadaptations for students with disabilities, whohave been known for paying attention to irrel-evant parts of the video, missing the importantinformation (Cannella-Malone et al., 2006).

Existing video clips can be easily adapted toinclude video descriptions. In fact, most of theteachers do such thing when stopping thevideo to redirect students' attention and pointout important stimuli in the clip. Moreover,educators can easily record video descriptionsduring the pause in the narration using sim-ple video editing software programs such asMovieMaker or iMovie. Despite the fact thatviewers can have access only to limited infor-mation that could fit into the available gap inthe soimdtrack, such video descriptor mayserve as a verbal cue to facilitate better com-

prehension. It is possible to reach strongereffects when descriptions are placed prior tothe relevant material in a video (Ely et al.,2006). However, more research is needed be-fore specifications of video descriptions canbe established.

Overall, students with and without disabili-ties may benefit from video instruction utiliz-ing such principles as video and auditory pre-sentation of content either segmented orrepresented in its entirety that is enhancedwith textual and visual modalities such as var-ious captions, as well as active engagementand interaction when viewing and searchingwithin clips. Video adaptations described inthis article represent best evidence-based prac-tices for students with intellectual disabilitiesand offer ways to ensure accessibility of aca-demic content to learners with various learn-ing abilities and preferences.

References

Agran, M., Gavin, M., Wehmeyer, M., & Palmer, S.(2006). Participation of students with moderateto severe disabilities in the general curriculum:The effects of the Self-Determined LearningModel of Instruction. Research àf Practice for Per-sons with Severe Disabitities, 31. 230-241.

Ayres, K. M., & Langone, J. (2002). Acquisition andgeneralization of ptirchasing skills using a videoenhanced computer-based instructional pro-gram. Journal of Special Education Technology, 77(4),15-28.

Ayres, K. M., & Langone, J. (2008). Video supportsfor teaching students with developmental disabil-ities and autism: Twenty-five years of research anddevelopment. yoMTOo/ of Special Education Technol-ogy, 23(3), 1-8.

Bellini, S., & AkuUian, J. (2007). A meta-analysis ofvideo modeling and video self-modeling interven-tions for children and adolescents with autismspectrum disorders. Exceptional Children, 75, 261-284.

Biemiller, A., & Siegel, L. S. (1997). A longitudinalstudy of the effects of the Bridge reading programfor children at risk for reading failure. LearningDisability Quarterly, 20, 83-92. doi:10.2307/1511216

Boone, R., Higgins, K., & Williams, D. (1997). Sup-porting content area instruction with videodiscsand multimedia technologies. Intervention inSchool and Clinic, 32, 302-311. doi:10.1177/105345129703200507

Boster, F. J., Meyer, G. S., Roberto, A.J., Linsey, L.,Smith, R., Inge, C, et al. (2006). The impact of


video Streaming on mathematics performance.Communication Education, 56, 134-144. doi:10.1080/03634520601071801

Bottge, B. A. (2001). Reconceptualizing math prob-lem solving for low-achieving students. Remedialand Special Education, 22, 102-112. doi:10.1177/074193250102200204

Bottge, B. A., Heinrichs, M., Mehta, Z. D., &Hung, Y. H. (2002). Weighing the benefits ofanchored math instruction for students withdisabilities in general education classes. Thejournal of Special Education, 35, 186-200. doi:10.1177/002246690203500401

Bottge, B. A., Rueda, E., Serlin, R. C, Hung, Y. H., &Kwon, J. M. (2007). Shrinking achievement differ-ences with anchored math problems: Challengesand possibilities. The Joumat of Special Education. 41,31-49. doi:10.1177/00224669070410010301

Bowe, F. G., & Kaufman, A. (2001). Caplioned media:Teacher perceptions of potential value for students withno hearing impairments: A national survey of specialeducators. Retrieved December 22nd, 2009, fromhttp://www.dcmp.org/caai/nadh51.pdf

Browder, D. M., Flowers, C , Ahlgrim-Delzell, L.,Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R.(2004). The alignment of alternate assessmentcontent to academic and functional curricula. TheJournal of Special Education, 37, 211-223. doi:10.1177/00224669040370040101

Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Flowers, C , Rick-elman, R. J., Pugalee, D., & Karvonen, M. (2007).Creating access to the general curriculum withlinks to grade-level content for students with sig-nificant cognitive disabilities: An explication ofthe concept. The Journal of Special Education, 41,2-16. doi: 10.1177/00224669070410010101

Browder, M. D., Wakeman, Y. S., Spooner, F., Ahl-grim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Researchin reading instruction for individuals with signif-icant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children. 72,392-408.

Cannella-Malone, H., Sigafoos, J., O'Reilly, M., de laCruz, B., Edrisinha, C, & Lancioni, G. E. (2006).Comparing video prompting to video modelingfor teaching daily living skills to six adults withdevelopmental disabilities. Education and Trainingin Developmental Disabilities, 41, 344-356.

Captioned Media Program. (2006). Captioning key:Guidelines and preferred techniques. Retrieved Febru-ary 12, 2008 from http://www.cfV.org/caai/nadh7.pdf

Chambers, B., Cheung, A., Madden, N. A., Slavin,R. E., & GitTotd, R. (2006). Achievement effectsof embedded multimedia in a Success for Allreading program, youmai of Educational Psychology,98, 232-237.

Cihak, D., Alberto, P. A., Taber-Doughty, T., &Gama, R. I. (2006). A comparison of static picture

prompting and video prompting simulation strat-egies using group instructional procedures. Eocuson Autiim and Other Dexielopmental Disabilities, 21,89-99. doi:10.1177/10883576060210020601

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt.(1993). Toward integrated curricular: Possibilitiesfrom anchored instniction. In M. Rabiuowitz(Ed.), Cognitive science foundation of instruction (pp.33-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-ates.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt.(1996). Multimedia environments for enhancinglearning in mathematics. In S. Vosniadou, E.DeCorte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), Interna-tional perspectives on the design of technology-supportedlearning environments (pp. 285-306). Hillsdale, N]:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Curry, C, Cohen, L. G., & Lightbody, N. (2006).Universal design in science learning. The ScienceTeacher, 7i(3), 32-37.

Detheridge, T., & Detheridge, M. (2002). Literacythrough symbols: Improving access for children andadults (2nd ed.). London: David Fulton.

Dymond, K. S., & Orelove, P. F. (2001). Whatconstitutes effective curricula for students withsevere disabilities? Exceptionality, 9, 109-122.doi:10.1207/S15327035EX0903_2

Ely, R., Emerson, R. W., Maggiore, T., Rothberg, M.,O'Connel, T., & Hudson, L. (2006). Increasedcontent knowledge of students with visual impair-ments as a result of extended descriptions, youma/of Special Education Technology, 2/(3), 31-43.

Fels, D. L., Udo,J. P., Diamond, J. E., & Diamond,J. I. (2006). A comparison of alternative narrativeapproaches to video description for animatedcomedy. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,100, 295-305.

Freeman, S. F. N., 8c Alkin, M. C. (2000). Academicand social attainments of children with mentalretardation I general education and special edu-cation settings. Remedial and Special Education, 21,3-18. doi:10.1177/074193250002100102

Hecker, L., Burns, L., Elkind, J., Elkind, K., & Kau,L. (2002). Benefits of assistive reading softwarefor students with attention disorders. Annals ofDyslexia, 52, 243-272. doi:10.1007/sll881-002-0015-8

Hine, J. F., & Wolery, M. (2006). Using point-of-viewvideo modeling to teach play to preschoolers withautism. Topics in Earty Childhood Special Education,26, 83-93. doi:10.1177/02711214060260020301

Hitchcock, C. H., Dowrick, P. W., & Prater, M. A.(2003). Video self-modeling intervention in sch<K)I-based settings. Remedial and Special Education, 24,36-45. doi:10.n77/074193250302400104

Hitchcock, C. H., Prater, M. A., & Dowrick, P. W.(2004). Reading comprehension and fluency: Ex-amining the effects of tutoring and video self-


modeling on first-grade students with reading dif-ficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 89-103.doi;10.23()7/1593644

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act,Amendments of 2004, Public Law No. 108-446, §614, U.S.C. 1414. Retrieved February 15, 2010,from http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/idea, pdf

Jackson, D. E. (1997). Case studies of microcom-puter and interactive video simulations in mid-dle school earth science teaching. Journal ofScience Education and Technology, 6, 127—141.doi:10.1023/A:1025618015318

Jones, F. W., Long, K., & Finlay, W. M. L. (2007).Symbols can improve the reading comprehensionof adults with learning disabilities, foumat ofIntelectual Disability Research, 51, 545-550. doi:10.1111/J.1365-2788.2006.00926.X

Kinney, E. M., Vedora, J., & Stromer, R. (2003).Computer-presented video models to teach gen-erative spelling to a child with an autism spectrumdisorder. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,5, 22-29. doi:10.n77/109830070.30050010301

Kirkland, C. E. (1995, April). The effectiveness of tele-vision captioning on comprehension and preference.Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, SanFrancisco, CA.

Kirkland, C. E. (1999). Evaluation of captioningfeatures to inform development of digital televi-sion captioning capabilities. American Annats of theDeaf 144, 250-260.

Kroeger, K. A., Schultz, J. R., & Newsom, C. (2007).A comparison of two group-delivered social skillsprograms for young children with autism, youraa/of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 808-817.doi: 10.1007/s 10803-006-0207-x

Lee, Y., & Vail, C. O. (2005). Computer-based read-ing instruction for young children with disabili-ties. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20( 1 ),5-18.

Linebarger, D. L. (2001). Learning to read fromtelevision: The effects of using captions and nar-ration. yournaZ of Educational Psychology, 93, 288-298. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.288

Maccini, P., Gagnon, J. C , & Hughes, C. A. (2002).Technology-based interventions for secondarystudents with learning disabilities. Learning Dis-ability Quarterly, 25, 247-262. doi:10.2307/1511356

McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., &Risen, T. (2002). Effects of embedded instructionon students with moderate disabilities enrolled ingeneral education classes. Education and Trainingin Mental Retardation and Developviental Disabilities,37, 363-377.

McCoy, K., & Hermansen, E. (2007). Video model-ing for individuals with autism: A review of model

types and effects. Education and Treatment of Chil-dren, 30, 183-213. doi:10.1353/etc.2007.0029

Mechling, L. C , Gast, D. L., & Cronin, B. A. (2006).The effects of presenting high-preference items,paired with choice, via computer-based video pro-gramming on task completion of students withautism. Focm on Autism and Autism and Other De-velopmental Disabilities, 21, 7-13. doi:10.1177/10883576060210010201

Mechling, L. C , & Langone, J. (2000). The effectsof a computer-based instructional program withvideo anchors on the use of photographs forprompting augmentative communication. Educa-tion and Training in Mental Retardation and Devel-opmental Disabilities, 35, 90-105.

Mechling, L. C , & Ortega-Hurndon, F. (2007).Computer-based video instruction to teach youngadults with moderate intellectual disabilities toperform multiple step job tasks in a generalizedsetting. Education and Training in DevelopmentalDisabilities, 42, 24-37.

Neuman, S., & Koskinen, P. S. (1992). Captionedtelevision as comprehensive input: Effect of inci-dental word learning from context for languageminority students. Reading Research Quarterly, 27,95-106. doi: 10.2307/747835

No Child Uft Behind Act of 2001, Public Law No.107-10. Retrieved February 15, 2010, from h t tp : / /www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-codingapproach. New York: Oxford University Press.

Piety, P. J. (2004). The language system of audiodescription: An investigation as a discursive pro-cess. Journal of Visual Impairments àf Blindness, 98,453-469.

Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Jumping off the page:Content area curriculum for the Internet age.Reading Online, 5. Retrieved February 8, 2008from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/pisha/

Preis, J. (2006). The effect of Picture Communica-tion Symbols on the verbal comprehension ofcommands by young children with autism. Focuson Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 21,193-210. doi:10.1177/10883576060210040101

Presno, C (1997). Bruner's three forms of repre-sentation revisited: Action, pictures, and wordsfor effective comptiter instruction. Journal of In-structional Psychology, 24, 112-118.

Reagon, K. A., Higbee, T. S., & Endicott, K. (2006).Teaching pretend play skills to a student withautism using video modeling with a sibling asmodel and play partner. Education and Treatmentof Children, 29, 517-528.

Ryndak, D. L., & Alper, S. (2003). Curriculum andinstruction for students with significant disabilities ininclusive settings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Schmeidler, E., & Kirchner, C. (2001). Adding au-


dio description: Does it make a difference?/our-nalof Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 197-221.

Shea, P. (2000). Leveling the playing field: A studyof captioned interactive video for second lan-guage learning. Journal of Educational ComputingResearch, 22, 243-263. doi:10.2190/3NEY-BNT0-FB28-VBWY

Simpson, A., Langone. J., & Ayres, K. M. (2004).Embedded video and computer based instructionto improve social skills for students with autism.Education and Training in Developmental Disalnlities,39, 240-252.

Slater, I. M. (2002). A pictorial approach for im-proving literacy skills in students with disabilities:An exploratory research study. Journal of SpecialEducation Technology, 17(3), 58-62.

Strauss, R. T., & Kinzie, M. B. (1994). Studentachievement and attitudes in a pilot study com-paring sinnilation to conventional teaching. TheAmerican Biology Teacher, 56, 398-402.

Turner, S.. & Alborz, A. (2003). Academic atuunmenLsof children with Down's syndrome: A longittidinalstudy. The British Journal of Educational Psycliohgf, 73,563-583. doi: 10.1348/000709903322591244

Van Horn, R. (2001). Streaming video and richmedia. Phi Delta Kappa, 82, 561-562.

Walker, L., Munro, J., & Richards, F. W. (1998).

Teaching inferential reading strategies throughpictures. The Volta Review, 100, 105-120.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Lance, G. D., & Bashinski, S.(2002). Providing access to the general curricu-lum for students with mental retardation: A multilevel model. Education and Training in Mental Re-tardation and Dnvtüprnerital Disabilities, 37, 223-234.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Uttin, D., & Agran, M. (2001).Achieving access to the general curriculum forstudents with mental retardation: A currictilumdecision-making model. Education and Training inMental Retardation and Devetopmental Disabitities,36, 327-342.

Wise, M., & Groom, F. M. (1996). The effects ofenriching classroom learning with the .systematicemployment of multimedia. Education, 117, 6 1 -69.

Xin, J., & Rieth, H. (2001). Video-assisted vocabu-lary instruction for elementary school studentswith learning disabilities. Information Technology inChildhood Education Annual, 12, 87-103.

Received: 3 June 2010Initial Acceptance: 25 July 2010Final Acceptance: 1 October 2010


COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

Author:

Title:

Source:

ISSN:

Publisher:

Evmenova, Anna S.; Behrmann, Michael M.

Research-Based Strategies for Teaching Content to Students with IntellectualDisabilities: Adapted Videos

Educ Train Autism Dev Disabil 46 no3 S 2011 p. 315-325

2154-1647

Council for Exceptional Children

1110 North Glebe Road, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22201-5704

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproducedwith permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright isprohibited. To contact the publisher: www.cec.sped.org

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub- licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Documents

Research-Based Strategies for Teaching Content to Students ...kihd.gmu.edu/assets/docs/kihd/activ/new/Evmenova... · for students with intellectual disabilities who, regardless of