Jumping off the Page: Content Area Curriculum for the Internet Age
Bart Pisha
Peggy Coyne
In the United States, national standards defining mastery in content areas such as science or the social studies demand literacy skills that include analysis, prediction, comparison, and interpretation. Despite the promulgation of such standards, 60 percent of the country’s 17-year-olds cannot “find, understand, summarize, and explain complex informational material,” a situtation that seems to have changed little over the past 30 years (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000, online document).
Students with identified learning disabilities fare especially poorly. These students’ deficits in basic skills compromise their ability to extract meaning from text (see, e.g., Ben-Dror, Bentin, & Frost, 1995; Cook Moats & Lyon, 1993; Deshler & Ellis, 1996; Deshler, Ellis, & Lenz, 1996; Lyon & Krasnegor, 1996; Scruggs & Wong, 1990; Shaywitz, 1992, 1996; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995; Wolf, Pfeil, Lotz, & Biddle, 1994). Because instruction in the content areas typically relies heavily on text, most of these students fail to achieve proficiency. This is a highly significant problem: there are approximately 5.5 million students with learning disabilities in American schools, accounting for 12 percent of the total public school population and 46 percent of those receiving special education services (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).
What are the causes of this disturbing situation? This article focuses on those that are rooted in teaching materials and instructional approaches. A review of research in these areas suggests two factors of particular importance:
1. Textbook designers contribute to the problem by designing “inconsiderate texts” that do not adequately highlight salient information (Armbruster, 1985; Chambliss, 1994; Jitendra et al., 2001; Tyree, Fiore, & Cook, 1994), and, as Carnine, Crawford, Harniss, Hollenbeck, and Miller (1998) note, “rarely include explicit organizational strategies designed to help students understand and apply content knowledge” (p. 150).
2. Students with special needs spend much time outside of their mainstream classrooms receiving remedial instruction in decoding, a focus that deprives them of the content exposure that would help them learn strategies for managing information effectively (Lipsky & Gartner, 1995; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995; Willis, 1995). In other words, the provision of remedial support outside of the general education classroom in many cases results in students falling further behind.
Students with learning disabilities can benefit from adaptation of instructional materials or creation of alternative materials. However, this approach places a tremendous burden on teachers, particularly novices (Ellis & Sabornie, 1990; Moon, Callahan & Tomlinson, 1999). Moreover, while many teachers adapt materials effectively, doing so requires careful attention to ensure that the adaptations preserve the lesson’s instructional goal and do not change the learning task. Further, teachers’ efforts sometimes are wasted because students perceive the adaptations as “different,” feel stigmatized by them, and are therefore reluctant to use them (Ellis, 1998).
Thus, students with learning disabilities and their teachers require new approaches that better support their needs. The National Council for the Social Studies (1994) has taken a step in the right direction with its curriculum standards, which call for a major overhaul of curricula, methods, and materials to reflect contemporary understanding of social studies subject areas and the best ways to teach them. An overhaul of this nature provides educators with an excellent opportunity to design materials and instructional approaches that meet the needs of diverse students. This article describes a recently completed study focused on the potential of multimedia, technology-based teaching materials, and instructional approaches to improve learning for all students, including those with learning disabilities.
Purpose
The purpose of this project was to develop an exemplar of an online content area textbook that uses contemporary multimedia technology to meet the needs of diverse learners. This resulted in the refinement of a software tool to read digital text aloud while simultaneously highlighting the words being read, thus supporting learners whose reading skills are insufficient for the text at hand.
Three items were developed as a result of 2 years of formative evaluation work with students and teachers:
1. A digital exemplar, created from materials in the public domain, that parallels a section of the popular high school history text The American Nation (Boyer, 1998), enhanced with a range of powerful built-in supports and customizable features (a page from it is shown at right)2. Assignments and pedagogical procedures that take advantage of this flexibility to improve learning opportunities for all students (including those with special needs) in integrated classroom settings
3. High School Students’ Recommendations for Digital Textbooks: A Formative Evaluation, a document that details the recommendations made by students for the design of digitized versions of texts /
Theoretical Framework
Traditional instructional materials and approaches are based on a one-size-fits-all paradigm that places an expectation of flexibility squarely on students. This creates barriers to learning for many, and attempts to overcome such barriers have usually involved implementation of specialized instructional supports. A new approach to pedagogy called Universal Design for Learning (UDL), under development at CAST, turns the tables (Meyer, Pisha, Murray, & Rose, 2001; Meyer & Rose, 1998; Pisha & Coyne, 2001; Rose & Meyer, in press). Drawing on recent work in the neurosciences and on the capacities of new educational media, UDL provides a framework that guides educators in achieving the kind of curricular flexibility that can meet the needs of widely diverse learners.
With digital technology, information can be presented in any one of several media, transformed from one medium to another, electronically formatted, and networked so that teachers and students can employ many alternatives with relative ease. Brain research provides insight into three broad learning networks that guide the selection of the alternatives to be presented (Gazzaniga, Ivry, & Mangun, 1998; Meyer, Pisha, Murray, & Rose, 2001; Meyer & Rose, 1998; Rose & Meyer, in press):
· Recognition networks enable us to identify and understand information, ideas, and concepts. They are specialized to sense and assign meaning to patterns we see, hear, taste, touch, and smell.
· Strategic networks enable us to plan, execute, and monitor actions. They are specialized to generate and oversee mental and motor patterns.
· Affective networks enable us to engage with learning. They are specialized to evaluate patterns and impart emotional significance to them.
These three networks align closely with the three conditions for learning proposed by Vygotsky (1978, 1986):
· The learner must recognize patterns in sensory information. Simple perception is insufficient. For example, the learner must both perceive written letters and recognize that the order in which they appear is not random.
· The learner must have a strategy for processing information. To comprehend complex information presented in text, students must use high-level strategies (such as locating main ideas, summarizing, and paraphrasing) and metacognitive skills (such as self-questioning).
· The learner must engage in the task. Some instructional supports and challenges may overwhelm or bore the student. Successful learning demands sustained focus despite distractions. Furthermore, the student must believe that he or she can be successful and appreciate the causal link between this success and the amount of effort expended.
According to Vygotsky (1978, 1986), these three conditions are best met within the student’s “zone of proximal development” (ZPD)—that is, the point at which the learning task is related to but just beyond the scope of the student’s existing knowledge in the target area. This happens when supports and scaffolds, challenge and resistance are balanced in a manner appropriate to the task at hand. If the task entails too much challenge, the learner cannot recognize its salient elements, approach it strategically, and maintain engagement with it. On the other hand, if the supports and scaffolds are too extensive, the task becomes too easy; no effort or learning is required to achieve it, and students may disengage due to boredom. However, ZPD is not determined by task alone. Individual differences can arise in any or all of the three learning networks, leading to a broad spectrum of learning abilities among all individuals. The ZPD is therefore different for each student.
These insights are the basis for the three principles of curricular flexibility contained in UDL:
1. In order to support diverse recognition networks, instructional materials and approaches should provide multiple, flexible methods of presentation.
2. To support diverse strategic networks, multiple, flexible methods of expression and apprenticeship opportunities should be provided.
3. To support diverse affective networks, multiple, flexible options for engagement should be available.
These principles can inform the development and implementation of curricula that optimize learning opportunities for the widest possible range of learners.
Research Design
The primary research methodology for this project was formative evaluation (Flagg, 1990), guided by seven research questions. This methodology differs from summative research in that its objective is to guide design of a new method, material, or approach, rather than to evaluate effectiveness empirically.
With the publisher’s blessing, researchers at CAST began by developing a digital prototype that reproduced on screen the look and feel of the history textbook The American Nation (Boyer, 1998). The prototype featured text-to-speech (TTS) capability, designed to support struggling readers’ access to written information by reading the text aloud to them. (This feature could be turned off if desired.) Further, users could elect to have the program highlight words, sentences, or paragraphs on screen as the text is read aloud, helping them to focus on written text as they listen. The prototype also included features such as hyperlinked reference tools (dictionary and encyclopedia), digital highlighters, note-taking tools, and navigational supports.
Qualitative data collected from those who worked with the prototype were used to inform subsequent modifications and to gain opinions regarding the relative advantages of digital and print presentation. Researchers also examined the effectiveness of the methods by which the digital prototype was incorporated into instruction, designing and testing new instructional materials and assignments to take advantage of the prototype’s scaffolds and supports. Through formative evaluation, teachers and students contributed to the design process. Consequently, their needs and preferences are reflected in the materials and instructional assignments.
The first year of the 2-year project was divided into four iterative development cycles (detailed below) that focused on refinement of the software tool and development of flexible digital presentation formats for the content of the history text. The second year built on the results of the first by using similar methods to develop, test, and refine assignments and instructional procedures using the software tool and digital history text. The data collected were used to derive preliminary recommendations regarding the design of flexible, digitally based curriculum materials included in the High School Students’ Recommendations for Digital Textbooks: A Formative Evaluation. These recommendations will be incorporated into CAST’s UDL guidelines, which will draw upon information from this study as well as other sources.
Setting and study sample. The study was based at a U.S. suburban public high school with a population of approximately 1000. Researchers offered students in two Grade 11 integrated American history classes an opportunity to participate (random sample selection is not a requirement of formative evaluation). The 70 students who accepted the invitation and gained parental consent were enrolled in the study. The group included 16 students with identified learning disabilities and 1 with a significant visual impairment.
Instrumentation. Four techniques were used to gather qualitative data:
· Observation of classrooms and individual students at work
· Interviews of students and teachers
· Student focus groups
· Collection of student work samples
Observations and interviews were guided by written protocols developed in collaboration with the project’s participating teachers. Focus groups addressed broad questions framed by the research team.
Procedures. During the first year, four formative evaluation cycles were completed, each involving four activities (see Figure 1): exploration consisted of approximately 2 weeks’ work with small groups of students, exploring the use of the software tool or the digitized content; development typically required several weeks and entailed programming and developing material based on feedback from the exploration activity; trial entailed a month-long evaluation by 15 students of the function and utility of recent modifications; and, finally, a one-month refinement period allowed further fine-tuning of the digital text based on comments collected during the trial phase.
Figure 1
One Formative Evaluation Cycle
Cycles were executed on an overlapping schedule to maximize their number (see Figure 2).
Figure 2
Four Iterative Development Cycles
The second year focused on developing student assignments and instructional techniques to capitalize on the novel capacities of the digital text developed in the first year. The formative evaluation process employed during the first year was modified to guide the development and testing of four types of student assignments.
Data analysis. Responses to protocol questions collected during the first year were pooled and then searched for shared student opinions as well as individual suggestions for modifications of the prototype.
We each independently reviewed the data and prepared a preliminary summary, then reconciled our summaries through discussion. We prepared a single summary document and presented it to the full CAST research and development team in order to inform ongoing prototype development. In the second year, acquisition of a coding and theory-building software program, NVivo (1999), enabled more efficient and flexible retrieval and coding of participant responses, but otherwise the Year 1 process was unchanged.
The World Wide Web Consortium’s Access Guidelines
The fundamentals of UDL prompt consideration of the access requirements of the broadest range of users when designing new educational materials. The basic access needs of individuals with special needs were met in the prototypes by complying with access guidelines promulgated by the World Wide Web Consortium (1999, online document). These guidelines served as a foundation upon which to build new options, features, and supports into the evolving prototypes, affecting both presentation of the textbook’s content and development of innovative assignments and activities.