Using a Multicomponent Multimedia Shared Story Intervention with an iPad to Teach Content Picture Vocabulary to Students with Developmental Disabilities

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

“…Five studies (Cullen, Keesey, Alber‐Morgan, & Wheaton, ; Herbert & Murdock, ; Hilton‐Prillhart, Hopkins, Skinner, & McCane‐Bowling, ; Mechling & Gast, ; Musti‐Rao, Lo, & Plati, ) included students with high‐incidence disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities) and students at risk. Students with low‐incidence disabilities (e.g., developmental disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, and moderate intellectual disabilities) were included in eight studies (Bosseler & Massaro, ; Cazzell et al, ; Crowley et al, ; Ganz et al, ; Lee & Vail, ; Rivera et al, ; Rivera, Hudson, Weiss, & Zambone, ; van der Meer et al, ).…”

“…Compared with vocabulary words in reading instruction that are mostly unknown or unfamiliar words, sight word is defined as the word “that can be both read and spelled within 2 seconds” (May, , p. 113) such as no, stop, or come back; students are more likely asked to remember the sight words by sight as a whole. Sight word vocabulary was the dependent variable in five (i.e., Cazzell et al, ; Crowley et al, ; Cullen et al, ; Hilton‐Prillhart et al, ; Musti‐Rao et al, ) studies, and content vocabulary was the dependent variable in eight studies (i.e., Bosseler & Massaro, ; Ganz et al, ; Herbert & Murdock, ; Lee & Vail, ; Mechling & Gast, ; Rivera et al, ; Rivera et al, ; van der Meer et al, ). Rivera et al () measured the number of English and Spanish words correct after implementing CAI both in English and Spanish.…”

“…Among the 13 studies (eligible for PND calculations), 10 studies (76.92%; Bosseler & Massaro, ; Crowley et al, ; Cullen et al, ; Herbert & Murdock, ; Hilton‐Prillhart et al, ; Mechling & Gast, ; Musti‐Rao et al, ; Rivera et al, ; Rivera et al, ; van der Meer et al, ) showed a PND score indicative of “highly effective” with a mean PND ≥ 90% for content vocabulary (i.e., Bosseler & Massaro, ; Herbert & Murdock, ; Mechling & Gast, ; Rivera et al, ; Rivera et al, ; van der Meer et al, ) and sight word vocabulary (i.e., Crowley et al, ; Cullen et al, ; Hilton‐Prillhart et al, ; Musti‐Rao et al, ). The other three studies (Cazzell et al, ; Ganz et al, ; Lee & Vail, ) could be categorized as being “effective,” demonstrating a PND of 70% to 90%.…”

“…Six studies (Crowley et al, ; Ganz et al, ; Musti‐Rao et al, ; Rivera et al, ; Rivera et al, ; van der Meer et al, ) of the studies are tablet‐assisted interventions; the other seven studies (Bosseler & Massaro, ; Cazzell et al, ; Cullen et al, ; Herbert & Murdock, ; Hilton‐Prillhart et al, ;Lee & Vail, ; Mechling & Gast, ) used computer software programs using traditional computer that does not have touchscreen capabilities. Both of tablet‐assisted instructions and nontablet‐assisted instructions produced similar PND scores: 96.22% and 92.67%, respectively.…”

“…Eight studies (54.55%; Bosseler & Massaro, ; Cazzell et al, ; Ganz et al, ; Lee & Vail, ; Mechling & Gast, ; Rivera et al, ; Rivera et al, ; van der Meer et al, ) reported that the CAI for vocabulary included instructional components that are related to visual representations, animations, and graphics, and a mean PND of 91.81% was calculated for these interventions. Photographs and pictures aligned with vocabulary words were noted in the highly effective studies (PND of 100%) including pictures of target vocabulary words, iPad screen pages that show pictures/words, and animations in the format of a digital book (Mechling & Gast, ; Musti‐Rao et al, ; Rivera et al, ; Rivera et al, ; van der Meer et al, ).…”