NASSP Bulletin

94(1) 5­–16
Universal Design for © 2010 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
Learning and Assistive sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0192636510371977
Technology: Leadership http://bul.sagepub.com

Considerations for
Promoting Inclusive
Education in Today’s
Secondary Schools

Jaime Messinger-Willman1
and Matthew T. Marino1

Abstract
The increased number of students with learning disabilities in general education
secondary school classrooms presents complex challenges for today’s educators.
This article describes how the Universal Design for Learning theoretical framework
can be used with assistive technology to enhance educational opportunities for
secondary students with learning disabilities. Barriers that prevent secondary teachers
from effectively selecting, adopting, implementing, and assessing assistive technology
devices are discussed and potential solutions are identified. The article concludes
with recommendations for enhancing secondary teachers’ professional development
opportunities.

Keywords
special education, Universal Design for Learning, assistive technology, inclusion,
professional development

The increased numbers of students with disabilities in general education secondary

school classrooms presents complex challenges for today’s educators. Teachers
must facilitate a learning environment that motivates students to reach high levels of

1
Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

Corresponding Author:
Matthew T. Marino, Washington State University, P.O. Box 642132, Pullman, WA 99164-2132, USA
Email: matthewmarino@wsu.edu
6 NASSP Bulletin 94(1)

academic achievement while ensuring that complex curricular materials are accessible
to a broad range of students with diverse interests, prior experiences, and ability levels.
Unfortunately, many secondary teachers feel unprepared to adequately serve this
growing population. As a result, they continue to search for ways to educate students
with disabilities more effectively (Hasselbring & Bausch, 2005). One way to help
secondary students compensate for the continued academic underachievement that is
so prevalent with secondary students with disabilities is through the use of assistive
technologies (ATs) such as text-to-speech or word prediction software. Individual edu-
cation program (IEP) team members are now mandated under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) to consider AT for every student when devel-
oping IEPs.
Approximately half of the 6.7 million students served under IDEA have learning
disabilities (LD). Federal law requires that schools educate these students with their
nondisabled peers to the maximum extent possible. In addition, schools are now held
accountable for making sure that students with LD participate and make adequate
yearly progress in the general education curriculum (No Child Left Behind, 2001).
Over the past decade, the percentage of students with disabilities who were fully
included in general education settings (i.e., spending 80% or more of the school day in
general education classrooms) increased 7% (Snyder, 2008). Unfortunately, students
with disabilities often struggle to make progress toward general education standards
and their personal IEP goals. For example, the 2005 National Assessment of Educa-
tional Progress indicated that science scores for eighth-grade students without a dis-
ability were significantly higher than students with disabilities (Grigg, Lauko, &
Brockway, 2006). Fortunately, the educational community has substantive evidence
regarding why secondary students with LD are struggling and how teachers can help
them succeed.
This article provides secondary principals with an overview of the challenges faced
by secondary students with LD and describes how universally designed curricular
materials and assistive technologies can enhance secondary students’ learning out-
comes. Supports that promote secondary school teachers’ effective selection, adop-
tion, implementation, and assessment of AT are presented. The article concludes with
recommendations for professional development opportunities that will enhance sec-
ondary teachers’ abilities to provide efficacious education and assessment options for
students with LD.

Understanding Secondary Students

With Learning Disabilities
Secondary teachers face numerous challenges as they attempt to address students’
unique needs, skills, talents, and interests with readily available resources (Kaplan,
2003). For many students with LD, the typical secondary curriculum (i.e., content,
instructional methods, classroom materials, and assessments) contains formidable bar-
riers to the learning process. Evidence suggests that a majority of secondary students
Messinger-Willman and Marino 7

with LD read at the fourth- or fifth-grade level (Mastropieri, Scruggs & Graetz, 2003).
Five essential skills are necessary for students to become proficient readers: (a) the
ability to use the alphabetic principle, (b) phonemic awareness, (c) decoding skills,
(d) fluency, and (e) comprehension strategies (Manset-Williamson & Nelson, 2005).
When students are missing one or all of these valuable skill sets, they experience sig-
nificant difficulties with reading. This is a primary concern for secondary students with
LD who are expected to read and learn from complex science, social studies, and math-
ematics textbooks.
Academic difficulties students with LD face in elementary school are magnified as
they enter secondary school. For example, middle school students with LD often lack
the metacognitive skills to identify appropriate decoding and comprehension strategies
during reading tasks (Schmidt, Rozendal, & Greenman, 2002). This undermines stu-
dents’ abilities to extract pertinent information and limits higher order thinking (i.e.,
inductive and deductive reasoning). Secondary students with LD are often unaware of
the purposes of the text structures they are reading. They retrieve information randomly,
without a plan of action. This approach undermines their ability to use the text to formu-
late questions and hypotheses. Students with LD often struggle to use text cues as aids
when encountering new textual information (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001).
As a result, they have difficulty determining essential information and lack the ability to
make abstract connections outside the domain of their current readings. A lack of prior
knowledge, particularly in history, geography, and science, coupled with the inability to
recognize when they do not understand new information, further undermines reading
comprehension.
Another difficulty for secondary students with LD is task persistence. These stu-
dents find many reading comprehension strategies daunting. This leads to frustration,
lower motivation, and an expectation for failure when encountering challenging aca-
demic tasks. As a result, students with disabilities have higher dropout, unemploy-
ment, and incarceration rates than their nondisabled peers.
Secondary principals and teachers can make a difference and stem this cycle if they
reduce or remove barriers in the curriculum that have long-term negative impacts on
students with LD. How can this be accomplished? Rose, Meyer, and Hitchcock (2005)
present the Universal Design for Learning theoretical framework as a means to develop
curricular materials and instructional practices that meet the needs of students with LD
and other students in today’s increasingly diverse secondary schools.

Universal Design for Learning: Promoting

Educational Opportunities for All Students
Architect Ronald Mace coined the term universal design in the early 1980s, as archi-
tectural requirements began to call for improved accessibility for people with and
without disabilities. Examples of universal design features in architecture are curb
cuts in sidewalks at points where individuals enter and exit a street. While these ramps
make it easier for individuals who are in wheelchairs to cross the street, they are also
8 NASSP Bulletin 94(1)

beneficial to people on bicycles, those pushing babies in strollers and members of the
postal service using dollies to deliver heavy packages. Universal design has recently
been adopted within the K-12 educational community under the name Universal
Design for Learning (UDL). UDL was developed through a collaborative effort between
the 15 member states of the Accessible Instructional Material Consortium and the U.S.
Department of Education. It is designed to provide access points, much like the curb
cuts in architecture, within the curriculum. This allows students to circumvent barriers
based on their individual learning preferences and needs.
The UDL theoretical framework guides the development of flexible curricula
through three primary principles: (a) support recognition learning (i.e., What is this?)
through multiple, flexible methods of presentation, (b) support strategic learning (i.e., How
am I going to do that?) through multiple, flexible methods of expression, and (c) sup-
port effective learning (i.e., Why should I learn this?) by providing multiple, flexible
methods of representation (Rose et al., 2005). IDEA (2004) mandates that universal
design principles be considered when developing or reviewing students’ IEPs.
UDL uses innovative technologies to accommodate learner differences (Meo, 2008).
For example, digital text is incorporated to create flexible curricular materials where
readability levels can be altered (Jackson, 2004). This allows students to focus their
metacognitive processes on higher order thinking, as opposed to decoding or other low
levels of knowledge acquisition associated with Bloom’s taxonomy. The UDL frame-
work helps educators move beyond a “one size fits all” model of instruction, which can
maximize the educational benefits inherent in a diverse classroom community. How-
ever, Rose et al. (2005) note that increased practitioner responsibilities, shifting teacher
responsibilities and roles, insufficient time, training, and a lack of personal resources
pose formidable barriers to effective UDL development and implementation.

The Complimentary Nature of Assistive

Technology and Universal Design for Learning
AT and UDL are designed to promote the access, participation, and progress of stu-
dents with disabilities in our schools (Silver-Pacuilla, 2006). Both AT and UDL rely
on technology to improve the education of students with disabilities. However, AT is
individual specific while UDL focuses on a holistic approach to curriculum develop-
ment. Consider an example where a language arts teacher has a struggling ninth-grade
student in her class. When she views the student’s learning difficulties from the AT
perspective, she considers how word prediction software can help that specific student
answer a writing prompt. When looking through the UDL lens, she acknowledges that
learning barriers reside within a curriculum that forces students to manually write
responses. She then alters the assessment so that the barrier no longer exists for any
student by allowing all students to use technology during their responses. AT can also
be low-tech. Using the previous example, if the struggling student had a disability that
limited her fine motor coordination, appropriate AT could be as simple as a pencil grip
or slant board that helps the student physically coordinate the writing process.
Messinger-Willman and Marino 9

The AT perspective seeks solutions that take into account a student’s strengths and
weaknesses, which are then used to create an independent technology-enhanced plan
for the student to overcome his or her limitations. The UDL perspective looks to create
flexible instruction, engagement, and assessment options that reduce barriers at the
outset of the learning process. Hitchcock and Stahl (2003) point out that both solutions
(i.e., AT and UDL) are needed to promote effective inclusive educational practice.

Assistive Technology in the Secondary School

Difficulties associated with developing and implementing a UDL curricula mean that
some students will need individualized AT to help them access the curriculum. AT
devices, such as electronic dictionaries, audio books, reading pens, talking calculators,
or word prediction software, benefit students with disabilities by improving accessi-
bility to the general education curriculum through cognitive, social, and emotional
scaffolds (White, Wepner, & Wetzel, 2003). When combined, UDL and AT offer the
potential to increase accessibility to a majority of students with and without disabili-
ties. (Silver-Pacuilla, 2006)
IDEA (2004) defines an AT device as “any item, piece of equipment, or product
system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is
used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a dis-
abilities.” AT scaffolds students’ academic progress by providing a means for the stu-
dent to circumvent literacy barriers in two ways: (a) as a reading support, meaning that
computer-based applications help students with LD successfully access grade-level
text as they read; and (b) as a reading intervention that helps students strengthen and
improve their overall reading skills (Hasselbring & Bausch, 2005). AT enables students
to complete tasks more effectively and efficiently than otherwise possible while becom-
ing more actively involved in their classroom (Bailey, Meidenbauer, Fein, & Mollica,
2005). AT provides opportunities for students with LD to learn at their own pace, which
has been associated with improvements in students’ communication skills, behavior,
and attention (Parette & Stone, 2008).
AT can be represented as a continuum of supports ranging from low-tech devices
(e.g., pencil grips, highlighters, reading guides, magnifying lens, and slant boards for
writing) to high-tech devices such as text-to-speech software and laptop computers
(Kaplan, 2003). Secondary teachers should consider AT based on individual student
characteristics including their current skills, the task, their goals, and objectives. Edu-
cators should consider how AT could support the functional skills that allow students
to access the general education curriculum (Edyburn, 2004).
Secondary IEP teams who effectively consider AT during the IEP process need a
common understanding of the legislation that governs AT implementation and the
types of AT resources that are available. Federal law mandates that IEP teams consider
AT for each student when developing an IEP. To accomplish this, secondary teachers
need to understand how to effectively implement AT into the curriculum. This is a
challenging and complex process. Successful AT programs are dependent on the
10 NASSP Bulletin 94(1)

following four steps: (a) preassessment, (b) collaborative problem solving among IEP
team members, (c) effective implementation, and (d) systematic evaluation (Marino,
Marino, & Shaw, 2006). Teachers of students with disabilities who require AT as part
of their IEP need to understand how to successfully select, implement, and monitor the
students’ progress when using AT to enhance the curriculum.

Barriers to Assistive Technology Implementation

and Professional Development Opportunities
There are numerous barriers prohibiting secondary IEP teams from making appro-
priate AT selection decisions. For example, inadequate knowledge of AT capabilities
or potential persists at all levels of the profession. Even experienced special educa-
tion teachers lack a fundamental knowledge of AT (Marino et al., 2006). White et al.
(2003) note that teachers are generally unaware of most AT devices and services
available for students with LD. As a result, AT may not be discussed as an option for
those students.
Cross (1981) identifies three types of barriers that can be applied to secondary
AT consideration: situational, institutional, and dispositional. Table 1 summarizes how
Cross’s learning barriers can be used to examine the barriers secondary teachers face
with AT integration.
Another barrier stems from a lack of professional development opportunities. Many
secondary teachers have limited time to explore, experiment, and study AT and UDL
integration. Some school districts use top-down professional development models,
which fail to produce consistent change over time. This leads to nonexistent, inconsis-
tent, or inadequate support for educators. Many state and local administrations do not
have specific guidelines for IEP teams who are considering AT (Zabala et al., 2000).
Oftentimes when AT professional development is offered, it attempts to include too
much information during a limited amount of time (Smith & Allsopp, 2005). In order
to maximize the potential of AT for adolescents with disabilities, greater training oppor-
tunities in assessment, team decision-making strategies, and device-specific training
should be provided (Judge, 2000).

Overcoming Assistive Technology Barriers

What does effective AT look like? Edyburn (2000) has established a four-phase pro-
cess that secondary IEP teams can use when considering AT for adolescents with
disabilities: (a) selection, (b) acquisition, (c) implementation, and (d) integration. The
first phase, selection, focuses on planning, locating, reviewing, and determining which
technology will meet the individual instructional needs of the student. The second
phase, acquisition, prompts the teacher to preview, evaluate, and obtain the technol-
ogy for the student. The third phase, implementation, encourages the teacher to think
about how to organize and create training opportunities for the successful use of the
technology application. The final phase, integration, specifically focuses on using the
technology within the learning context. The integration phase includes several factors:
Messinger-Willman and Marino 11

Table 1. Relationship Between Cross’s Learning Barriers and Barriers to Assistive

Technology (AT) Integration

Cross’s (1981) Learning Barriers Barriers to AT integration

Situational Lack of funding
Deficits in teachers’ knowledge of AT
Deficits in teachers’ abilities to effectively integrate AT
into the curricula
Lack of available resources
Lack of teachers’ time
Lack of collaboration during the selection process
Lack of consideration for individual and/or family needs
Institutional Lack of availability and/or inadequate professional
development opportunities
Lack of AT specialists
Technology is unreliable
AT design features are too complicated
Funding for the device is insufficient
Dispositional Teachers’ reluctance and/or attitudes toward AT
integration
Selected AT draws negative attention to the student
Note. Potential solutions to these barriers are presented in the action steps to eliminate barriers and
resources columns in Table 2.

linking the technology to the curriculum, managing student access and use of the tech-
nology, assessing the effectiveness and usefulness of the technology, and continuing
to examine how the technology tool can be extended and used through the student’s
learning within a variety of contexts (Smith & Allsopp, 2005).
Training programs can help prepare secondary teachers to make appropriate AT
choices by establishing several supports within the school community: access to
equipment, technology assistance, sustainable practices, pedagogical assistance,
administrative and community backing, and time for learning and collaboration.
Teachers benefit most when they are able to use AT to solve authentic problems for
actual students in their classrooms. Workshops should be site based, rigorous, sus-
tained, and designed and directed by teachers (Lahm, 2005). Effective training pro-
grams identify teacher needs and interests prior to the first training session. They build
on teachers’ current strengths and vary the instructional approach so that teachers’
learning styles are addressed. Smith and Allsopp (2005) outline five major compo-
nents of effective training that promote the transfer of newly acquired AT skills into
classroom practice: (a) theory must be presented to provide a conceptual basis for the
AT, (b) teachers must have the AT modeled, (c) multiple opportunities should be given
to practice with the AT within the workshop setting under simulated conditions, (d) the
training should provide structured feedback, and (e) teachers need ongoing training
and sustained coaching and support.
12 NASSP Bulletin 94(1)

Consider how this comprehensive approach to AT training benefits the students of

an eighth grade teacher who is taking her class on a field trip to the city’s local power
plant. Students are expected to collect information about the design of the plant in
their field journals. This will include sketches of equipment and facts about the facility
collected from interviews with employees. The information will be used in science
lessons on sustainability for the remainder of the academic unit. The teacher knows
that a student with a disability in written expression will have a difficult time with the
task and would benefit from AT such as a digital camera and recording device. This
teacher is able to identify appropriate AT, teach the student to use it, and apply it to the
situation. When the class returns to school, she would help the student download the
photos into a Microsoft® PowerPoint presentation and supplement the pictures with
several Boardmaker® symbols, text, and audio from the plant employees so that the
student can describe the information collected at the plant. This example highlights
how AT provides alternate pathways for students to meet the lesson objectives and
demonstrate their true learning potential.
An evidence-based approach to professional development that helps develop the
type of teachers highlighted in the previous example is AT User Groups (Parette &
Stone, 2008). Features of AT User Groups include (a) professionals who have a vested
interest in AT, (b) commitment to acquiring new skill sets surrounding the array of AT
devices available, (c) effective implementation of AT into the curricula, (d) support at
both the school and district level for their participation in the group, and (e) a desire to
share learning with other education professionals in the learning community. Skilled
practitioners with high levels of AT knowledge conduct the training sessions, which
offer structured, hands-on curricula application opportunities. This provides novice
professionals with the opportunity to learn basic functions of new devices and applica-
tions. The training sessions include direct whole-group instruction and individualized
instruction. Table 2 outlines the barriers that hinder AT implementation and offers
potential solutions that can be applied to eliminate these barriers.

Conclusions
Students with disabilities who are fully included in secondary classrooms continue to
struggle to make adequate yearly progress toward their educational goals. Secondary
educators can use UDL and AT to enhance the academic, social, and behavior out-
comes for students with disabilities if implementation barriers can be overcome. This
can only be accomplished when teachers have the knowledge and skills to success-
fully integrate AT into their existing educational practices. Professional development
can enhance teachers’ understandings of both UDL and AT. However, there is a need
for future empirical research that specifically identifies (a) additional professional
development models that incorporate AT, instructional technology, and UDL; and
(b) outcome measures and assessment instruments for measuring the effectiveness of
professional development across these areas. This research will enhance professional
development so that secondary teachers can enhance the educational opportunities for
 Table 2. Summary of Potential Solutions to Overcome Assistive Technology (AT) Integration Barriers

Barriers Action Steps to Eliminate Barriers Resources

Lack of funding
Deficits in teachers’ knowledge
about AT and inadequate
professional development
opportunities
Every state has a federally subsidized AT lending
program. Identify yours
Funding is often available through disability specific
organizations
Collaborate with a local universities to access grant
funding
Purchase used AT equipment
Recycle purchased AT within the district
Many state lending programs offer free training and
trial opportunities for up to 90 days. Check with
your state’s AT lender
Assess your teachers’ AT knowledge
Create time for teachers to share effective AT
strategies at professional development meetings
Create an AT professional development plan for
your building/district
Provide opportunities for teachers to attend AT
trainings (e.g., substitutes, conference registration
fees)
Build relationships with university special education
faculty and participate in AT research
Federal funding resources: http://www.disability.gov/
technology/funding_sources
State-level disability resources: http://www.
disabilityresources.org/DRMreg.html
A state-level example of funding resources in Virginia:
http://www.vats.org/atfunding.htm
An example of a privately funded AT equipment
database: http://www.themorganproject.org/
Retail AT items: http://www.enablemart.com/
A database of used AT equipment: http://www
.passitoncenter.org/
Links to AT organizations that share/rent/lend AT: http://
www.usatechguide.org/links.php?catid=91
Quality indicators for professional development
and training: natri.uky.edu/assoc_projects/qiat/
documents/8%20QIAT%20QIs%20Professional%20
Dev.pdf
Assistive Technology Training Online: http://atto.buffalo
.edu/
Family guide to AT at http://www.pluk.org/AT1.html
The Family Center on Technology and Disability: http://
www.fctd.info/
The AT Quickwheel can be used to help teams make
AT decisions: http://www.cec.sped.org/ScriptContent/
Orders/ProductDetail.cfm?section=CEC_
Store&pc=P5551

13
(continued)
 Table 2. (continued)
14
Barriers
Lack of available information for
school personnel
Lack of teacher time
Deficits in teachers’ abilities to
effectively integrate AT into
the curricula
Action Steps to Eliminate Barriers
Develop a web-based list of resources that are
available at the district, state, and federal level for
your teachers
Designate at least one person in your district who
is an AT specialist
Release time for AT training
Collaborative planning time. For example, hire a
substitute for a day so teachers can collaborate
Provide funding for online professional
development opportunities. Often districts can
negotiate for reduced rates
Use Google docs or Skype to share information at
remote locations
Create quarterly half-day workgroups where
teachers develop AT implementation and
assessment strategies
Establish mentoring programs within the school or
district
Create an expert technology team to provide
support to faculty and staff
Resources
The Alliance for Technology Access offers teacher
workshops: http://www.ataccess.org/
The Star Center is a model demonstration and resource
center: http://www.starcenter.tn.org/
Simplified technology provides a host of links to
disability specific AT information: http://www.lburkhart
.com/links.htm
National Assistive Technology Research Institute includes
online presentations, videos, etc.: http://natri.uky.edu/
resmenu.html
Google docs allow teachers to share ideas remotely:
http://docs.google.com/
A visual map of online collaboration tools: http://www
.mindmeister.com/12213323
Free online collaboration tools: http://www.
missiontolearn.com/2009/08/free-online-collaboration/
Article on integrating assistive technology with
curriculum standards: http://eric.ed.gov/
ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/
detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_
SearchValue_0=ED478557&ERICExtSearch
_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED478557
Article on AT’s role in the general education curriculum:
http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-3/assistive.htm
AT integration principles (includes video): http://www
.sc.edu/scatp/cdrom/integratingat.htm
Messinger-Willman and Marino 15

the ever-increasing number of students with LD in inclusive classrooms. We invite

principals to share their experiences with successful AT integration by contacting the
authors.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication
of this.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References
Bailey, M. N., Meidenbauer, N., Fein, J., & Mollica, B. M. (2005). Comprehensive statewide
programs for technology-related assistance. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.),
Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 31-46). Whitefish
Bay, WI: Knowledge By Design.
Cross, P. (1981). Adults as learners: Increasing participation and facilitation learning. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Edyburn, D. L. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1-23.
Edyburn, D. L. (2004). Rethinking assistive technology. Special Education Technology Prac-
tice, 5(4), 16-22.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension
strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational
Research, 71, 279-320.
Grigg, W., Lauko, M., & Brockway, D. (2006). The nation’s report card: Science 2005
(NCES 2006-466). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/
Hasselbring, T. S., & Bausch, M. E. (2005). Assistive technologies for reading. Educational
Leadership, 63(4), 72-75.
Hitchcock, C., & Stahl, S. (2003). Assistive technology, universal design, universal design
for learning: Improved learning opportunities. Journal of Special Education Technology,
18(4), 45-52.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 20, U.S.C. § 1401:
Definitions, pp. 1-2 (2004). Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/idea/law.htm
Jackson, R. (2004). Technologies supporting curriculum access for students with disabilities.
Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from
http://www.CAST.org/publications
Judge, S. L. (2000). Accessing and funding assistive technology for young children with dis-
abilities. Early Childhood Special Education Journal, 28, 125-131.
Kaplan, M. (2003). Tailor-made support. Principal Leadership, 4, 60-64.
Lahm, E. A. (2005). Improving practice using assistive technology knowledge and skills. In
D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology
research and practice (pp. 721-746). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge By Design.
16 NASSP Bulletin 94(1)

Manset-Williamson, G., & Nelson, J. M. (2005). Balanced, strategic reading instruction for
upper-elementary and middle school students with reading disabilities: A comparative study
of two approaches. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 59-74.
Marino, M. T., Marino E. C., & Shaw, S. (2006). Making informed assistive technology decisions
for students with high incidence disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(6), 18-25.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. E. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction
for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 26, 103-116.
Meo, G. (2008). Curriculum planning for all learners: Applying Universal Design for Learning
(UDL) to a high school reading comprehension program. Preventing School Failure, 52(2),
21-28.
No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). Elementary and secondary education. Retrieved from http://
www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
Parette, H. P., & Stone, J. B. (2008). Benefits of assistive technology use groups for early child-
hood education professionals. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 313-319.
Rose, D., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (2005). The universally designed classroom: Accessible
curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Schmidt, R., Rozendal, M. S., & Greenman, G. (2002). Reading instruction in the inclusion
classroom: Research practices. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 130-140.
Silver-Pacuilla, H. (2006). Moving toward solutions: Assistive & learning technology for all
students. Washington, DC: National Center for Technology Innovation. Retrieved from
http://www.nationaltechcenter.org/
Smith, S. J., & Allsopp, D. (2005). Technology and inservice professional development:
Integrating an effective medium to bridge research to practice. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins
& R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice
(pp. 777-792). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge By Design.
Snyder, T. D. (2008). Mini-digest of education statistics, 2007 (NCES 2008-023). Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Depart-
ment of Education.
White, E. A., Wepner, S. B., & Wetzel, D. C. (2003). Accessible education through assistive
technology. T.H.E. Journal, 30(7), 24-32.
Zabala, J., Bowser, G., Blunt, M., Hartsell, K., Carl, D., Korsten, J., . . . Reed, P. (2000). Quality
indicators for assistive technology services in school settings. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 15(4), 25-36.

Bios
Jamie Messinger-Willman, M.A. is a doctoral student in special education at Washington State
University. She is a former special education teacher and is a certified educational diagnosti-
cian. Mrs. Messinger-Willman has extensive experience working with general education
teachers in inclusive classrooms.

Matthew T. Marino, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of special education at Washington State

University. Dr. Marino’s research focuses on how the Universal Design for Learning theoretical
framework can be used with technology to improve educational opportunities for students with
learning disabilities.