You are here:

Students with Learning Difficulties: Web 2.0 Resources for Response to Intervention (RTI)
PROCEEDINGS

, , Seton Hall University, United States

AACE Award

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Vancouver, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-76-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Abstract

Abstract: This paper is an analysis of Web 2.0 resources that complement an educational strategy called Response to Intervention (RTI). RTI is an innovative approach to remediate students with learning difficulties before referral to special education placement. Emanating from special education legislation, educational reforms, best practice, and common sense, RTI is now a mandated practice in many states. Technology plays a major role in helping students who are at risk for failure due to LD, ADD, autism and ELL. The use of Web 2.0 and interactive online activities are explored to assist teachers and interventionists to create inclusive learning environments that complement RTI. Examples of online resources that exploit the power of Web 2.0 tools are illustrated.

Citation

Skeele, R. & Russo, C. (2009). Students with Learning Difficulties: Web 2.0 Resources for Response to Intervention (RTI). In T. Bastiaens, J. Dron & C. Xin (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2009--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1971-1980). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 21, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Babbitt, B.C., & Miller, S.P. (1996). Using hypermedia to improve the mathematics problem-solving skills of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,29(4), 391-401.
  2. Bahr, C.M., Nelson, N.W., & VanMeter, A.M. (1996). The effects of text-based and graphics-based software tools on planning and organizing of stories. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 355-370.
  3. Brown, A., & Miller, D. (2002). Classroom teachers working with software designers: The Wazzu Widgets project. Proceedings
  4. Bryant, D.P. & Bryant, B.R. (1998). Using assistive technology adaptations to include students with learning disabilities in cooperative learning activities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 41-54.
  5. Chambers, B., Abrami, P.C., McWhaw, K. & Therrien, M.C. (2001). Developing a computer-assisted tutoring program to help children at risk. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7 (2-3), 223-239.
  6. Chang, M.M., & Lehman, J. (2002). Learning foreign language through an interactive multimedia program: An experimental study on the effects of the relevance component of the ARCS model. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 81-98 Center for Implementing Technology in Education (CITE). (2008). Blogs, wikis and text messaging: What are the implications for students with learning disabilities. 12/8/08: http://www.idonline.org/article/27426?theme=print
  7. Corporation for Public Broadcasting (2003). Connected to the future: A report on children’ s Internet use. 2/9/2009: http://www.cpb.org/stations/reports/connected/connected_report.pdf
  8. Cuban, L. & Tyac, D.B. (1997). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Boston: Harvard U. Press.
  9. DasSmaal, E., Klapkijk, A., & Vander Lelj, A. (1996). Training of perceptual unit processing in children with a reading disability. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 221-250.
  10. Dede, C. (2000). Emerging influences of information technology on school curriculum. J. Of Curriculum Studies, 32 (2), 281-303.
  11. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309.
  12. Grabe, M. & Grabe, C. (2000). Integrating the Internet for meaningful learning. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  13. Hall, T.E., Hughes, C.A., & Filbert, M. (2000). Computer assisted instruction in reading for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Education& Treatment of Children, 23 (2), 173-193.
  14. Hasselbring, T.S. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20, (6) 1-7.
  15. Hickman, L., Blackman, L.S., & Reis, E.M. (1995). Mental retardation: Foundations of educational programming. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  16. Inclusive Schools Network. (2009). Web 2.0 and new media tools for organization and planning. Education Development Center, Inc. 4/ 4/09 from: http://www.inclusiveschools.org/Web_%2526_New_Media_Tools
  17. Irausquin, R., Drent, J., & Verhoeven, L. (2005). Benefits of computer-presented speed training for poor readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 55(2), 246-265.
  18. Labbo, L. (2002). Computers, kids, and comprehension. In C.C. Block et al. (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Re-thinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 275-289). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  19. Lacina, J. (2004). Promoting language acquisitions: Technology& English language learners. Childhood Educ., 8 (2), 113-116.
  20. Lewis, R.B., & Doorlag, D.H. (2006). Teaching special students in general education classrooms (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
  21. MacArthur, C.A., Ferretti, R.P., Okolo, C.M., & Cavalier, A.R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 273–301.
  22. Macaruso, P., Hook, P.E., & McCabe, R. (2006). The efficacy of computer-based supplementary phonics programs for advancing reading skills in at-risk elementary students. J. Of Research on Reading, 29 (2), 162-172.
  23. Malone, T.W. (1981). Towards a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 3(4), 333-370.
  24. Molebash, P.E. (2002). Constructivism meets technology integration: The CUFA technology guidelines in an elementary social studies methods course. Theory and Research on Social Education, 30(3), 429-455.
  25. Moore-Brown, B.J., Montgomery, J.K., Bielinkski, J., & Shubin, J. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention: Teaching before testing helps avoid labeling. Topics in Language Disorders, 25 (2), 148-167.
  26. Nicolson, R.I. & Fawcett, A.J. (1996). The dyslexia early screening test. The Psychological Corporation, London.
  27. Okolo, C.M., Bahr, C.M., & Rieth, H.J. (1993). A view of computer-based instruction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(1), 1-27.
  28. Olson, J.L. & Platt, J.M. (2000). Teaching children and adolescents with special needs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  29. Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works. New York: The Guildford Press.
  30. Quenneville, J. (2001). Tech tools for students with learning disabilities: Infusion into inclusive classrooms. LD Online. Retrieved from: http://www.ldonline.org.articl E/6380
  31. Quenneville, J. (2002). Jane Quenneville-mentor teacher. LD Online. 1/19/09: http://www.ldonline.org/article/Jane_Quenneville _-_Mentor_Teacher
  32. Roblyer. M.D. (2007). Integrating educational technology into teaching. 4th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  33. Roblyer. M.D. & Doerling, A.H. (2010). Integrating educational technology into teaching. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  34. Russell, S.J, Corwin, R., Mokros, J.R., & Kapisovsky. (1989). Beyond drill and practice: Expanding the computer mainstream. Arlington, VA: Council of Exceptional Children.
  35. Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. (2000). 2000 research report on the effectiveness of technology in schools (7th ed.). Washington,
  36. Tomei, L.A. (2002). The technology façade. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. U.W. England. (2009). User engagement in the development of Web 2.0 technologies for people with learning disabilities. 4/6/09: http://hsc.uwe.ac.uk/net/research/Default.aspx?pageid=506

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.