You are here:

NCAC: Research & Solutions: Curriculum: Enhancements Literature Review

An Overview - Enhancements Literature Review

Conducted by Roxanne Ruzic and Kathy O'Connell

d

CAST conducted a review of the literature to determine what the research had to say about useful enhancements or adaptations to curriculum. I phase I, we did so by investigating the research on eight curriculum enhancements.

Selection of enhancements

We selected the enhancements in two stages. First, we consulted CAST staff, NCAC partners, experts in the field suggested by CAST and NCAC participants, and attendees at the CAST strand on UDL at the CEC conference in Vancouver in 2000. Individual responses were solicited in person and over email. Based on feedback from these groups, we selected four enhancements to investigate (concept maps, text-to-speech, virtual reality, and anchored instruction). Second, we examined the results of the curriculum teacher survey (summary in this packet), drawing from the items teachers said they did most and most wanted. We wanted to ensure that we investigated the research that has been conducted on the enhancements with which teachers are most concerned. Based on the teacher survey, we added the additional enhancements (technology tools, manipulatives, models/examples, and modified text).

During the preparation of the updated Phase II documents, some of the original eight topics have been combined. Also, the K8AccessCenter at AIR and CAST have collaborated to extend the original enhancement documents to includes significant sections on implications for Universal Design for Learning.

Phase II: Curriculum Enhancements

1. Background Knowledge
2. Graphic Organizers
3. Text Transformations
4. Curricumlum Modifications
5. Virtual Reality/Simulations

Phase II: Curriculum Enhancements with implications for UDL implementation

1. Background Knowledge with UDL
2. Graphic Organizers with UDL
3. Virtual Reality/Simulations with UDL

Phase I: The Eight Enhancements

1. Anchored Instruction
2. Modified Text
3. Text to Speech
4. Manipulatives
5. Virtual Reality/Simulations
6. Technology Tools
7. Concept Maps
8. Models

Literature review methodology

We identified relevant research in each of the eight areas by conducting iterative keyword searches using a number of academic databases including ERIC, PsychINFO, and PsychLit. We did not include specific disabilities in the keyword searches, but were careful to identify as many articles as possible, including studies with many different kinds of populations. From these searches, we eliminated articles that

• did not study students in the United States,
• did not study students in grades K-12 in the public schools,
• did not study the use of an enhancement on the list/were not relevant,
• did not study the effect of an enhancement on students (as opposed to teachers), and
• described or celebrated the use of an enhancement without reporting the results of a research study.

• that studied students outside the United States;
• that focused on pre-school or post-secondary students;
• that were conducted in private schools or learning centers;
• that did not focus on the use of one of the enhancements specifically (rather than teacher practices or other activities, with use of the enhancement as a secondary concern);
• that focused on the effect of the enhancement on teacher performance or perception, rather than students' achievement or affect;
• that focused on use of the enhancement by teachers in training; or
• that described a teacher's use of an enhancement without reporting the results of an associated empirical research study.

Following these criteria, we reviewed only empirical research studies that specifically examined k-12 students in the united states in public school classrooms, resource rooms, or computer labs. All studies investigated the use of one or more of the eight enhancements and associated effect(s) on student learning and/or affect.

Studies were abstracted in reverse chronological order beginning with the most recent first. For each reference, we followed a systematic coding procedure that we iteratively and collaboratively developed with researchers at CAST and Boston College. Using the scheme, we coded for

• research findings (positive or negative),
• populations studied,
• location of study,
• special circumstances of the research, and
• methodological issues.

Brief summaries of the research findings for each enhancement follow.