Technology provides a new opportunity to improve the reading and writing skills of all students across all grade levels. In an age of learning standards and adequate yearly progress (AYP), students in K-12 education are consistently being challenged to demonstrate increasingly complex performance in a variety of academic areas. Students come to the classroom representing a wide variety of backgrounds, experiences, skills and abilities. Responding to the educational needs of all students, teachers and school systems are often faced with the reality of finding the means to provide the necessary supports and motivators to successfully engage the student in the curriculum.

The purpose of this workshop is to provide participants with hands-on experiences using accessible desktop and online technologies that can provide needed supports for diverse learners in acquiring independent learning skills. Specifically, the technologies used in the hands-on activities during this workshop will help teachers understand how to differentiate instruction to meet the individual needs of students within the areas of reading and writing. Each presenter brings a broad range of experiences related to strategically integrating technologies in the classroom to support students in acquiring learning and literacy skills. Furthermore, the presenters have conducted research related to using technology to support students in the classroom and will ground the workshop within the findings of this research and evidence from the larger literature base. Each participant will gain knowledge and understanding not only related to accessible technologies but also an understanding of the research that has been conducted to support the use of these technologies. Through hands-on activities and examples of the practical application of these technologies, participants will develop the skills necessary to quickly and effectively implement these accessible tools in the classroom.


At the conclusion of the workshop, participants will

1) gain insight into the challenges that students have in reading and writing and the accessible technologies that can support effective research-based instructional strategies in the classroom,

2) learn how to use accessible desktop and online tools to differentiate their instruction to support literacy (reading and writing) skills for all students,

3) gain an understanding in how to assist diverse learners in acquiring independent reading and writing skills by using accessible desktop and online tools;

4) identify no cost and low cost, and other technologies that are readily available and accessible that can support students' learning skills within reading and writing;

5) understand the steps that they could be taken to improve literacy skills in their schools using accessible desktop and online tools.

Outline

Introductions (5 minutes)
PowerPoint Presentation: Overview of The Accessible Desktop and Online Tools to Differentiate Instruction in Reading and Writing (10 minutes)
Demonstration Activity 1: Tools to Support Reading Comprehension in the Content Areas (7.5 minutes)
Demonstration Activity 2: Universal Instructional Strategy in Using Visuals for Content Vocabulary Instruction (7.5 Minutes)
Differentiating Instruction with Accessible Tools in the Writing Process
Presentation of activities and tools related to efficacy research and associated readily accessible tools to support the writing process in the areas of prewriting, drafting, revising, editing and publishing. (20 minutes)
Questions and Answers (10 minutes)

Supporting Research

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C.E. (2004). Reading next – A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
 
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2001). The condition of education. Appendix 1, Table 29-3. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Center for Technology Innovation (NCTI). (2005). "Moving Towards Solutions, Assistive and Learning Technology for All Students”. http://www.nationaltechcenter.org/resources.asp

National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2003). Learning for the 21st Century: A report and mile guide for 21st century skills. [Online report]. Washington, DC: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.

International Reading Association. (2002). Integrating Literacy and Technology in the Curriculum: A position statement of the International Reading Association. Newark, Delaware: Author.

Bahr, C. M., Nelson, N. W., & Van Meter, A. (1996). The Effects of Text-Based and Graphics-Based Software Tools on
Planning and Organizing of Stories. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
29(4), 355-370.

Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Graham, S. (2003). Teaching Expressive Writing
to Students with Learning Disabilities: Research-Based Applications and
Examples. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 109-123.

Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional
tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review
of Educational Research, 63(1), 69-93.

Berninger, V. W. (1999). Coordinating Transcription and Text Generation
in Working Memory during Composing: Automatic and Constructive
Processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22(2), 99-112.

Berninger, V. W., & Amtmann, D. (2003). Preventing written expression
disabilities through early and continuing assessment and intervention
for handwriting and/or spelling problems: Research into practice. In H.
L. Swanson, S. Graham & K. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of Special
Education Research (pp. 345-363). New York: Guilford Press.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Word processing and wrting in elementary
classsrooms: A critical review of the literature. Reveiw of Educational
Research, 61(1), 107-155.

Danoff, B., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1993). Incorporating Strategy
Instruction within the Writing Process in the Regular Classroom: Effects on the Writing of Students with and without Learning Disabilities.
Journal of reading behavior, 25(3), 295-319.

De La Paz, S. (1999a). Composing via Dictation and Speech Recognition
Systems: Compensatory Technology for Students with Learning
Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22(3), 173-182.

De La Paz, S. (1999b). Teaching Writing Strategies and Self-Regulation
Procedures to Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities. Focus
on Exceptional Children, 31(5), 1-16.

De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997a). Effects of Dictation and Advanced
Planning Instruction on the Composing of Students with Writing and
Learning Problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 203-222.

De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997b). Strategy Instruction in Planning:
Effects on the Writing Performance and Behavior of Students with
Learning Difficulties. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 167-181.

Englert, C. S., & Raphael, T. E. (1989). Developing successful writers
through cognitive strategy instruction. In J. E. Brophy (Ed.), Advances
in research in teaching (Vol. 1, pp. 105-151). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., &
Stevens, D. D. (1991). Making Strategies and Self-Talk Visible: Writing
Instruction in Regular and Special Education Classrooms. American
educational research journal, 28(2), 337-372.

Englert, C. S., Wu, X., & Zhao, Y. (2005). Cognitive Tools for Writing:
Scaffolding the Performance of Students through Technology. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(3), 184-198.

Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching writing to students with
learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal,
101, 251-272.

Graham, S. (1990). The Role of Production Factors in Learning Disabled
Students' Compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4),
781-791.

Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., & Whittaker,
D. (1997). Role of Mechanics in Composing of Elementary School Students:
A New Methodological Approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1),
170-182.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989a). Components Analysis of Cognitive
Strategy Instruction: Effects on Learning Disabled Students'
Compositions and Self-Efficacy. Journal of educational psychology,
81(3), 353-361.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989b). Improving Learning Disabled
Students' Skills at Composing Essays: Self-Instructional Strategy
Training. Exceptional Children, 56(3), 201-214.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The Role of Self-Regulation and
Transcription Skills in Writing and Writing Development. Educational
Psychologist, 35(1), 3-12.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities
and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of of SRSD studies. In H. L.
Swanson, S. Graham & K. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of Learning
Disabilities (pp. 323-344). New York: Guilford Press.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Writing better: Effective strategies
for teaching students with learning difficulties. Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & MacArthur, C. A. (2006). Explicitly
teaching struggling writers: Strategies for mastering the writing
process. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(5), 290-294.

Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S. S., & Page-Voth, V. (1992).
Improving the Compositions of Students with Learning Disabilities Using
a Strategy Involving Product and Process Goal Setting. Exceptional
Children, 58(4), 322-334.

Graves, A., & Montague, M. (1991). Using Story Grammar Cueing to Improve
the Writing of Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning
disabilities research & practice, 6(4), 246.

Graves, A., Montague, M., & Wong, Y.-L. (1990). The Effects of
Procedural Facilitation on the Story Composition of Learning Disabled
Students. Learning Disabilities Research, 5(2), 88-93.

Hallenbeck, M. J. (1996). The Cognitive Strategy in Writing: Welcome
Relief for Adolescents with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 11(2), 107-119.

Hetzroni, O. E., & Shrieber, B. (2004). Word processing as an assistive
technology tool for enhancing academic outcomes of students with writing disabilities in the general classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
37(2), 143-154.

Hunt-Berg, M., & Rankin, J. L. (1994). Ponder the Possibilities:
Computer-Supported Writing for Struggling Writers. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 9(3), 169-178.

Isaacson, S., & Gleason, M. M. (1997). Mechanical Obstacles To Writing:
What Can Teachers Do To Help Students with Learning Problems? Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(3), 188-194.

Jacobi, C. (1986). Word processing for special needs students: Is there
really a gain? Educational Technology, 26, 36-39.

Jankowski, L. (1998). Educational Computing: Why Use a Computer for
Writing? Learning and Leading with Technology, 25(6), 30-33.

Jones, I. (1994). The Effect of a Word Processor on the Written
Composition of Second-Grade Pupils. Computers in the Schools, 11(2),
43-54.

Kerchner, L. B., & Kistinger, B. J. (1984). Language Processing/Word
Processing: Written Expression, Computers and Learning Disabled
Students. Learning disability quarterly, 7(4), 329.

Koester, H. H., & Levine, S. P. (1996). Effect of a word prediction
feature on user performance. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative
Communication Vol 12(3) Sep 1996, 155-168.

Langone, J., Levine, B., Clees, T. J., Malone, M., & Koorland, M. A.
(1996). The Differential Effects of a Typing Tutor and
Microcomputer-Based Word Processing on the Writing Samples of Elementary
Students with Behavior Disorders. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 29(2), 141-158.

Langone, J., Willis, C., & Malone, D. M. (1994/1995). Effects of
computer-based word processing versus paper/pencil activities on the
paragraph construction of elementary students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(2),
171-183.

Lewis, R. B., Graves, A. W., Ashton, T. M., & Kieley, C. L. (1998). Word
Processing Tools for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Comparison
of Strategies To Increase Text Entry Speed. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 13(2), 95-108.

MacArthur, C. A. (1996). Using Technology to Enhance the Writing
Processes of Students with Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 29(4), 344-354.

MacArthur, C. A. (1998a). From Illegible to Understandable: How Word
Recognition and Speech Synthesis Can Help. TEACHING Exceptional
Children, 30(6), 66-71.

MacArthur, C. A. (1998b). Word Processing with Speech Synthesis and Word
Prediction: Effects on the Dialogue Journal Writing of Students with
Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21(2), 151-166.

MacArthur, C. A. (1999a). Overcoming Barriers to Writing: Computer
Support for Basic Writing Skills. Reading and Writing Quarterly:
Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 15(2), 169-192.

MacArthur, C. A. (1999b). Word Prediction for Students with Severe
Spelling Problems. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22(3), 158-172.

MacArthur, C. A. (2000). New Tools for Writing: Assistive Technology for
Students with Writing Difficulties. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(4),
85-100.

MacArthur, C. A., Ferretti, R., Okolo, C., & Cavalier, A. (2001).
Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical
review. Elementary School Journal, 101, 273-301.

MacArthur, C. A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning Disabled Students'
Composing under Three Methods of Text Production: Handwriting, Word
Processing, and Dictation. The Journal of special education, 21(3), 22.

MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Schwartz, S. S. (1993). Integrating
Strategy Instruction and Word Processing into a Process Approach to
Writing Instruction. School Psychology Review, 22(4), 671-681.

MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., Schwartz, S. S., & Schafer, W. (1995).
Evaluation of a Writing Instruction Model That Integrated a Process
Approach, Strategy Instruction, and Word Processing. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 18(4), 278-291.

MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S. S., & Graham, S. (1991). A Model for
Writing Instruction: Integrating Word Processing and Strategy
Instruction into a Process Approach to Writing. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 6(4), 230-236.

MacArthur, C. A., & Shneiderman, B. (1986). Learning Disabled Students'
Difficulties in Learning to Use a Word Processor: Implications for
Instruction and Software Evaluation. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
19(4), 248-253.

Montague, M., Graves, A., & Leavell, A. G. (1991). Planning, procedural
facilitation, and narrative composition of junior high students with
learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6,
219-224.

Montague, M., & Leavell, A. G. (1994). Improving the Narrative Writing
of Students with Learning Disabilities. Remedial and Special Education
(RASE), 15(1), 21-33.

Neuman, S. B., & Cobb-Morroco, C. (1987/1988). Writing with word
processors for remedial students. The Computing
Teacher(December/January), 45-47, 61.

Neuman, S. B., & Morocco, C. C. (1987). Two hands is hard for me:
keyboarding and learning disabled children. Educational Technology, 27,
36-38.

Newcomer, P. L., & Barenbaum, E. M. (1991). The Written Composing
Ability of Children with Learning Disabilities: A Review of the
Literature from 1980 to 1990. Journal of learning disabilities, 24(10),
578.

Newell, A. F., Arnott, J. L., Booth, L., Beattie, W., & et al. (1992).
Effect of the "PAL" word prediction system on the quality and quantity
of text generation. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication Vol
8(4) Dec 1992, 304-311.

Nichols, L. M. (1995). A Comparison of Two Methods for Teaching
Keyboarding in the Elementary School. Computers in the Schools, 11(4),
15-25.

Nichols, L. M. (1996). Pencil and Paper Versus Word Processing: A
Comparative Study of Creative Writing in the Elementary School. Journal
of Research on Computing in Education, 29(2), 159-166.

Outhred, L. (1989). Word Processing: Its Impact on Children's Writing.
Journal of learning disabilities, 22(4), 262-264.

Raphael, T. E., & Englert, C. S. (1990). Reading and writing: Partners
in constructing meaning. The Reading Teacher, 43, 388-400.

Sawyer, R., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1992). Direct Teaching,
Strategy Instruction, and Strategy Instruction With Explicit
Self-Regulation: Effects on the Composition Skills and Self-Efficacy of
Students With Learning Disabilities. Journal of educational psychology,
84(3), 340-352.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Written composition. In M.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778-803).
NY: Macmillan.

Schwartz, S. S., & MacArthur, C. A. (1990). Creating a Community of
Writers: The Computers and Writing Instruction Project. Preventing
School Failure, 34(4), 9-13.

Seawel, L., Smaldino, S. E., Steele, J. L., & Lewis, J. Y. (1994). A
Descriptive Study Comparing Computer-Based Word Processing and
Handwriting on Attitudes and Performance of Third and Fourth Grade
Students Involved in a Program Based on a Process Approach to Writing.
Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5(1), 43-59.

Sexton, M., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1998). Self-Regulated Strategy
Development and the Writing Process: Effects on Essay Writing and
Attributions. Exceptional children, 64(3), 295.

Shaw, E. L. J., Nauman, A. K., & Burson, D. (1994). Comparison of
Spontaneous and Word Processed Compositions in Elementary Classrooms: A
Three-Year Study. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5(3-4),
319-327.

Sturm, J. M., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2002). Effects of Hand-Drawn and
Computer-Generated Concept Mapping on the Expository Writing of Middle
School Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities:
Research & Practice, 17(2), 124-139.

Troia, G. A., & Graham, S. (2002). The Effectiveness of A Highly
Explicit, Teacher-Directed Strategy Instruction Routine: Changing the
Writing Performance of Students with Learning Disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 290-305.

Troia, G. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1999). Teaching Students with
Learning Disabilities To Mindfully Plan When Writing. Exceptional
Children, 65(2), 235-252.

Utay, C., & Utay, J. (1997). Peer-Assisted Learning: The Effects of
Cooperative Learning and Cross-Age Peer Tutoring with Word Processing on
Writing Skills of Students with Learning Disabilities. Journal of
Computing in Childhood Education, 8(2/3), 165-185.

Vacc, N. N. (1987). Word Processor versus Handwriting: A Comparative
Study of Writing Samples Produced by Mildly Mentally Handicapped
Students. Exceptional Children, 54(2), 156-165.

Weintraub, N., & Graham, S. (1998). Writing Legibly and Quickly: A Study
of Children's Ability to Adjust Their Handwriting to Meet Common
Classroom Demands. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 13(3),
146-152.

Welch, M. (1992). The PLEASE Strategy: A Metacognitive Learning Strategy
for Improving the Paragraph Writing of Students with Mild Learning
Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15(2), 119-128.

Williams, S. C. (2002). How Speech-Feedback and Word-Prediction Software Can Help Students Write. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 34(3), 72-78.

Wolfe, E. W., Bolton, S., Feltovich, B., & Bangert, A. W. (1996). A
Study of Word Processing Experience and Its Effects on Student Essay
Writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(3), 269-283.

Wolfe, E. W., Bolton, S., Feltovich, B., & Niday, D. M. (1996). The
Influence of Student Experience with Word Processors on the Quality of Essays Written for a Direct Writing Assessment. Assessing Writing, 3(2), 123-147.

Zhang, Y. (2000). Technology and the Writing Skills of Students with Learning Disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
32(4), 467-478.

Zhang, Y., Brooks, D. W., Fields, T., & Redelfs, M. (1995). Quality of Writing by Elementary Students with Learning Disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(4), 483-499.

Zipprich, M. A. (1995). Teaching Web Making as a Guided Planning Tool to Improve Student Narrative Writing. Remedial and Special Education,
16(1), 3-15,52.

Presenter Background

Kathleen H. McClaskey, President of Ed Tech Associates, is an educational and assistive technology consultant, with over 24 years experience as a teacher, technology integration specialist and K-12 technology director. She is graduate instructor at Plymouth State University and Cambridge College teaching both online and onsite courses in educational and assistive technologies. In her consulting business, she offers onsite consultation and professional development services to schools on using desktop and online technology tools to improve outcomes for diverse learners and in leveraging technology investments for student achievement. She is a frequent national and regional workshop presenter and professional development trainer on topics that include technology for diverse learners and the role of technology to improve outcomes for all students. In the past two years she has presented at the TRLD Conference, the International Dyslexia Association Conference, LDA of America Conference, the National Education Computing Conference and numerous regional and state conferences in the northeast. Please visit her website for a complete listing of presentations and workshops that she has given. http://www.edtech-associates.com/educational-technology-events.htm

Brian Wojcik is the Coordinator of the Special Education Assistive Technology Center (SEAT) at Illinois State University. As an educator, Brian has been integrating technology to meet the needs of students with diverse learning needs for over a decade. In his current position, Brian works with over 2000 pre-service teacher education students annually and over 1500 practicing education professionals developing strategies to learn and integrate technology into the classroom to support the learning needs of a variety of students. He has presented internationally on the topics of assistive technology, pre-service teacher education, technology integration, intervention and intervention assessment, and curriculum technology supports.

Sean Smith, Ph.D. holds the rank of Associate Professor of Special Education at the University of Kansas and is a member of the Management Team in the eLearning Design Lab, a component of the Center for Research on Learning at the University of Kansas. Dr. Smith has a background in the area of special education and technology. Dr. Smith serves on the Editorial Board for the Journal of Special Education Technology, Interventions: School and Clinic, Remedial and Special Education, and recently stepped down as co-editor of the Journal of Special Education Technology where he authored a quarterly column on technology and teacher education.
Dr. Smith's research and technology-based development has resulted in over 30 publications in the area of special education, technology integration, teacher education, and professional development. These publications have appeared in journals such as the Journal of Special Education Technology, Remedial and Special Education, Intervention: School and Clinic, Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, Teacher Education and Special Education, and Teaching Exceptional Children. He has also written for practitioner journals (Learning and Technology) and has co-authored a best selling book on Exceptionalities with Rud and Ann Turnbull.
Dr. Smith currently facilitates the Kansas Infinitec Coalition (please see http://ks.myinfinitec.org/). This project involves over half the districts in the state of Kansas and is focused on enhancing the use of technology into the lives of students with disabilities and those struggling students. As facilitator of this project, Dr. Smith conducts numerous presentations across the state on issues central to universal design for learning and related technology solutions to meet the instructional needs of all students. He is also engaged in research-based projects in collaboration with technology vendors and school districts to expand our understanding of the impact of technology use in the general and special education classroom.