Content education for all students including those with (significant) intellectual disabilities >> Inclusion of all students regardless of their abilities and needs (IDEA) >> NCLB mandates inclusion of students in accountability measures >> various laws require access of students with disabilities to the general ed. curriculum
Assistive technology provides support to students with disabilities in the mainstream classrooms and society in general. Moreover, computer-based technology provides opportunities for students with special needs to participate in general education activities along their peers (Hasselbring & Glaser, 2000). Unfortunately, there is a lack of technological options for teaching academic skills (e.g., literacy) to students with cognitive disabilities, especially those in secondary education. The programs are either too complex or not age-appropriate for older students (Wehmeyer, 1998)
Prior to my dissertation planning, I have conducted a qualitative research pilot study with teachers of students with intellectual disabilities. It was my attempt to explore current integration trends of educational video clips with this population of students. A majority of teachers commented on the lack of video clips that would be age and developmentally appropriate for there middle and high school students. Thus, it is possible that those students will benefit from educational video clips adapted to their abilities and needs.
Over the last three decades video formats have changed from videodiscs to videotapes; DVDs and computer-based videos. Regardless of the format, video continues to be widely used in general and education classrooms for teaching various academic (Bottge, et al., 2001; Hitchcock, Prater, & Dowrick, 2004; Lee, & Vail, 2005) as well as functional (Graves, Collins, & Scchuster, 2005; Mechling, Gast, & Langone, 2002; Van Laarhoven, & Van Laarhoven-Myers, 2006) and behavioral skills (Maione, & Mirenda, 2006; Schreibman, Whalen, & Stahmer, 2000; Shipley-Benamou, Lutzker, &Taubman, 2002).
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles support teachers in attempt to provide access to general education curriculum for students with various abilities and needs. UDL promotes the development of instructional materials appropriate for diverse learners. Thus, in UDL classrooms teachers provide students, including those with disabilities, with adapted means to be successful and progress towards achievment and assessment standards, regardless of students' abilities and needs (Rose, Sethuraman, & Meo, 2000). Therefore, this research study will attempt to explore the ways to adapt widely used educational materials (video clips) in order to meet the criteria of UDL standards. In addition, adapted video clips may also meet another parameter of UDL and be useful for other populations as well (Rose & Meyer, 2000).
The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of alternative narration and various types of captioning (highlighted text and picture-based captioning) on factual and conceptual comprehension of video clip content by students with intellectual disabilities. In addition, this study will investigate whether there is a difference in efficacy of still pictures versus motion video clips. The tentative research questions are as follows:
Back to Top
Video instruction was greatly transformed following the development and increased interest to “anchored instruction.” Based on the ideas of Whitehead (1929) about people’s ability to recall inert knowledge when asked to do so, not using if for simultaneous problem solving, anchored instruction was conceptualized by the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV, 1990). The major initiative was to offer information to students through various means including specifically designed video clips that provided conceptualized background, anchors supporting students’ previous knowledge for meaningful problem-solving knowledge rather than pointless memorization of facts (Moore, Rieth, & Ebeling, 1993). Anchored instruction started with two programs The Young Sherlock Program for literacy and social studies and The Jasper Woodbury Problem Solving Series, primarily focused on math with cross-curricular links. Video anchors in both of those programs provided students, teachers, and others involved with some common knowledge that ensured active engagement of participants with different backgrounds (CTGV, 1990, 1992, 1993; Kinzer, Gabella, & Rieth, 1994).
Anchored video instruction introduced a new type of video with several interactive features including hyperlinks, feedback, and data collection systems. However, it also required a different instructional approach. Instead of supplementing traditional teaching activities with linear videos, anchored instruction focused on providing students with opportunities to construct their own knowledge through the seamlessly embedded video teaching moments (Love, 2004). Several studies have found anchored instruction effective in increasing performance of students with and without disabilities in different academic areas (Beaver, 1995; Bottge, et al., 2002; Shyu, 2000). As can be seen, current research on anchored instruction involves students without disabilities or students with mild/learning disabilities (although still very limited). It is unknown how students with more severe intellectual disabilities will interact with video clips designed to incorporate anchored instruction elements, yet adapted to meet the needs of the students.
Video is widely used for teaching students with various disabilities. One of the popular areas of video implementation is modeling and self-modeling for students with disabilities, especially for those with intellectual disabilities. “Video modeling presents the performance of a skill by a model such as a same-age peer or adult without disability” (p.27) (Mechling, 2005). Self-modeling is defined as observations of oneself successfully engaged in adapted behavior at a more advanced level than the one they actually can perform (Hitchhock, Dowrick, & Prater, 2003; Mechling, 2005). Two different techniques can be used in video self-modeling. One is a positive self-review, when students watch the video of themselves edited to delete all errors. The second technique is feedforwarding, when subskills are videotaped and combined into a complete task, self-modeling appears to be a promising tool for teaching students with disabilities (Dowrick, 1999; Mechling 2005).
Regardless of interactivity level, multiple presentation formats offered by video enhances students comprehension, memory as well as attention skills (Moore, Rieth, & Ebeling, 1993). Several reviews of literature summarized the effects of video instruction on students with and without disabilities. Hitchhock, Dowrick and Prater (2003) presented a review of 18 articles examining the effects of video self-modeling in school-based settings. They reported moderate to strong outcomes of video self-modeling on teaching various academic, behavior, and functional skills to students with disabilities and/or at-risk.
Ayres and Langone (2005) focused their review of literature on video instruction and intervention specifically for students with autism. Once again video was found to be an effective tool for teaching conversational, shopping, and other daily living skills to students with autism. While this review targeted mostly linear modeling video, the researchers raised the issue of built-in feedback and interactive features possibility to “create the optimal learning environment” (p.195) for this population.
Mechling (2005) puts another spin on the topic and reviews instructor-created video programs used to teach students with disabilities. By definition teacher-created videos imply more individualized content. Once again a majority of studies demonstrated positive effects of different forms of video instruction including video feedback, video modeling and self-modeling, as well as more interactive computer-based video.
In summary, research on use of video for teaching students with more severe disabilities evolves around linear modeling and self-modeling videos. However, very few existing studies show that students with cognitive disabilities could benefit from interactive video instruction (Mechling & Langone, 2000; Wissick, Lloyd, & Kinzie, 1992).
Characteristics of students with MR, autism (learn more about LIFE students for next year. Include any other population of students in the characteristics’ description) that are related to their ability to attend and comprehend (non-fiction) video clips [to be continued...]. Students with intellectual disabilities may require a combination of information elements (e.g., text, audio, video) to increase comprehension and avoid memory overload (Manouselis, Koukouvinou, Panagiotou, Psichidou, & Sampson, 2002)
Closed captioning was originated to support users with hearing impairments in the use of multimedia materials with built-in narration. However, closed captioning has found new applications for users with and without disabilities. Some research exists on how closed captioning affect development of reading comprehension with ESOL students (King, 2002) and students without disabilities (Linebarger, 1999). CLosed captioning is found to increase listening comprehension(Huang & Eskey, 1999) as well as incidental word learning (Neuman & Koskien, 1992) for ESOL students. However, no research exists on the use of closed captioning with students with disabilities. Based on characteristics of students with intellectual disabilities, they may benefit from adapted closed captioning that highlights the words appropriate for their reading level. Another kind of adapted closed captioning may include picture-based captions.
Picture symbols have been found to support reading and writing skills of learners, including those with intellectual disabilities, who struggle to engage in conventional literacy activities (Dziwulski, l994). Some researchers believe that symbols are a vital tool for developing literacy (bridge between the concrete (pictures) and the abstract (print) (Detheridge, l996). Others have found little impact on written language development beyond providing general access to language and communication (Bishop, Rankin, & Mirenda, l993). Either way picture symbols can enhance any material including video. Existing research on the role of picture symbols in improvement of various literacy skills demonstrates the grade-level improvement in word identification with the picture-based test (Slater, 2002). On the other hand Didden, Prinsen, & Sigafoos (2000) concluded that picture support may interfere in sight word acquisition by students with moderate mental retardation. Regardless of controversial findings, the use of picture-based captioning in video clips is worth exploring.
According to the theory of cognitive overload, multimedia components of learning may require more cognitive processing than the learner's cognitive capacity allows (Mayer & Moreno, 2003). Thus Mayer, Hegarty, Mayer, and Campbell (2005) investigated the effects of static paper-based illustrations with printed text versus computer-based narrated animations on knowledge retention and transfer by students without disabilities. The results supported the theory that narrated animation requires more cognitive processing, thus interfering with the information acquisition and processing. Similarly, college students without disabilities demonstrated better retention and transfer of information promoting more meaningful learning with the set of words and corresponding pictures (Moreno & Valdez, 2005). Existing research of the cognitive overload theory and multimedia learning allows suggesting that students, especially those with intellectual disabilities, may demonstrate a better comprehension of the content when it is presented in the form of still picture clips with captioning as compared to motion video clips with captioning.
Back to Top
LIFE students (10-12 college students with various intellectual disabilities)
Working individually with each student for 10-15 minutes on GMU campus (e.g., AT lab)
Choice of before, after classes, or during the break based on students' preferences and behavior patterns (e.g., always arriving earlier on campus)
Video intervention 3-5 days a week
Approximate duration of study is 5-7 weeks (in case of employing counterbalancing of studies 9-15 weeks)
Provide students with practice of reading picture supported texts (e.g., training session on picture symbols or asking LIFE instructors to incorporate picture-based texts into their reading and writing lessons)
- Two multiple baseline across participants studies (based on random assignment):
- First study: multiple baseline across participants (4-6 students)
- Baseline: regular video
- Treatment: alternating between two treatments ((1)motion video with highlighted text captions and (2)still pictures with highlighted text captions)
- Second study: multiple baseline across participants (4-6 students)
- Baseline: regular video
- Treatment: alternating between two treatments ((1) motion video with picture-based captions and (2) still pictures with picture-based captions) (the order of treatments is based on random assignment)
- Alternating treatments within each treatment of each study
- Possibly counterbalancing between two multiple baseline studies
Sample graphs for Study 1 and Study 2 are presented below (the data points are made up). The blue graphs represent the possible counterbalancing studies, which may not be included in the dissertation proposal.
- Motion video with alternative narration and highlighted text captions
- Still pictures video with alternative narration and highlighted text captions
- Motion video with alternative narration and picture-based captions
- Still pictures video with alternative narration and picture-based caption
3-5 min. video clips on current trends (e.g., global warming, current trends in technology, current trend in fast food, etc.)
Piloting alternative narration scripts with experts (e.g., LIFE instructors)
Piloting 10% of videos
with former LIFE students (seeking feedback about whether videos are too easy, difficult, inappropriate, hard to follow, age inappropriate)
Factual recall questions
Conceptual comprehension questions
Searching video for answers (if students do not respond or possibly respond incorrectly, they will be advised to search the video for responses)
Interviews with students (possibly also parents and instructors) to determine social validity of intervention
Choice of oral or written (e.g., circle the correct answer) response based on students' abilities, needs, and preferences
Visual analysis of graphed data points across all dependent variables in both baseline and treatment condition will be conducted. I will attempt to determine within and across-phases variability (e.g., immediacy of effect) and other patterns such as level of the data (to compare levels between phases and between treatments), trend or slope of the data (to notice possible carry-over effects) (Kennedy, 2005)
Percent of Non-overlapping Data (PND) scores will be determined. PND scores are represented by “the proportion of overlapping data displayed between treatment and baseline” (p. 27) (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Casto, 1987). By determining the percent of non-overlapping data between the baseline and each of the treatments, I will attempt to determine whether the interventions are effective, and possibly even which intervention is more effective.
Randomization tests will be conducted with the help of special software for single-subject designs (Todman & Dugard, 2001) and SPSS. I am planning to run two randomization tests for each study. The first multiple baseline randomization test will be between the baseline and the combined treatments across the students (Design 3 - AB Multiple Baseline). It will be conducted in effort to determine the efficacy of overall adapted video clips without specification of adaptation. In addition, I will attempt to run the second alternative treatments randomization test for each individual students across treatments to determine which treatment is more effective for that student (Design 5a - Single Case - 2 Randomized Treatments).
Note: In case if the counterbalancing study takes place, a test that allows more than 2 treatments will be used (Design 5 - Single Case Randomized Treatment). Thus, it will be possible to determine which of the 4 adaptations is more effective for each individual student.
Dissertation Planning
