The Effects of an iPad® Multimedia Shared Story Intervention on Vocabulary Acquisition for an English Language Learner

Abstract

The current research explored the use of a multimedia shared story to increase the number of correct English and Spanish vocabulary words used by an English language learner with a moderate intellectual disability. A 10-year-old elementary student in a self-contained special education classroom participated in this research. Utilizing the iBooks Author software, personalized shared stories were created on an iPad® for the participant in both English and Spanish. Each story incorporated pictures of items for which the student could not provide a corresponding vocabulary word in either language. The multimedia shared stories were then used to teach these vocabulary words in both English and Spanish. Results showed that the student initially acquired Spanish vocabulary words more quickly, but his English vocabulary words accelerated at a faster rate over the course of the investigation. To support the quantitative data, the students' teacher and paraprofessional were interviewed to determine their experiences and to discuss nuances that occurred over the course of the intervention. Results and implications for future research are discussed.

Computer‐assisted vocabulary instruction for students with disabilities: Evidence from an effect size analysis of single‐subject experimental design studies

“…The final step of article search (#7) left 17 studies that met the six inclusion criteria, four studies (Forbes et al, ; Knight, Wood, Spooner, Browder, & O'Brien, ; Rivera, Mason, Moser, & Ahlgrim‐Delzell, ; Wood, Mustian, & Cooke, ) were further excluded because they did not provide sufficient information to compare PNDs (criterion #3); therefore, only 13 studies were qualified for PND calculation. For example, Knight et al () provided a graph for each participant but only combined results for vocabulary and literal comprehension were available.…”

“…For example, Knight et al () provided a graph for each participant but only combined results for vocabulary and literal comprehension were available. The other three ineligible studies (Forbes et al, ; Rivera et al, ; Wood et al, ) did not have baseline phase, which is essential to calculate PNDs. PNDs were incalculable in four studies (i.e., Forbes et al, ; Knight et al, ; Rivera et al, ; Wood et al, ) due to the lack of baseline phase.…”

The quality of evidence in tablet‐assisted interventions for students with disabilities

“…First, all 14 studies received 3‐point scores for the first sub‐category (participant description) by providing an operational definition of the participants' disabilities and details such as age, gender and IQ. For the second sub‐category (participant selection), only six studies (Burton et al, ; Chai et al, ; Creech‐Galloway et al, ; Rivera et al, ; Seok et al, ; Spooner et al, ) received 2‐point or 3‐point scores by describing criteria for selecting participants along with reading pre‐assessment data; the other eight studies received 1‐point scores mostly because they lacked data from reading pre‐assessments. With regard to the third sub‐category, setting description, ten studies received 3‐point scores; two studies received 2‐point scores because they provided some features of setting but needed more details such as type of classroom, room arrangement and number of students per teacher.…”

“…Each of these studies was further reviewed to determine if it fully meets the criteria. Upon the completion of this process, 17 intervention studies were identified for inclusion in this review: three quasi‐experimental/experimental design studies (Berninger, Nagy, Tanimoto, Thompson, & Abbott, ; Liu, Chou, Liu, & Yang, ; Zhang, Trussell, Gallegos, & Asam, ) and 14 single‐case design studies (Arthanat, Curtin, & Knotak, ; Burton et al, ; Chai et al, ; Creech‐Galloway, Collins, Knight, & Bausch, ; Crowley, McLaughlin, & Kahn, ; Ganz et al, ; Hart & Whalon, ; Musti‐Rao, Lo, & Plati, ; Purrazzella & Mechling, ; Retter, Anderson, & Kieran, ; Rivera, Mason, Moser, & Ahlgrim‐Delzell, ; Seok, DaCosta, & Yu, ; Spooner, Ahlgrim‐Delzell, Kemp‐Inman, & Wood, ; van der Meer et al, ).…”

A Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Framework for Improving Academic and Postsecondary Outcomes of Students with Moderate or Severe Intellectual Disability

“…Researchers have demonstrated that the use of technology can be beneficial for teaching a variety of academic skills such as literacy to CLD students with ID (Silverman & Hines, 2009;Rivera et al, 2012;Rivera et al, 2014). Technology is a malleable tool that can be adapted to meet the linguistic, academic, and functional needs of varying students.…”