Abstract
We focus on how a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework can be used to design Dynabooks that are sensitive to the needs of all learners as they engage in sense making, expression, and inquiry in challenging domains. UDL directs our attention to multiple representations, supports for students’ action and expression, and ways to engage diverse students with material. We report on how a UDL approach has been developed in Dynabooks for reading, science, and mathematics and discuss some key challenges going forward, as well as the lessons for educators.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
American Psychological Association. (2011). Education and socioeconomic status. Retrieved January 12, 2012 from http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-education.aspx
Brown, A., & van Tryon, P. J. S. (2010). Twenty-first century literacy: A matter of scale from micro to mega. Clearing House, 83, 236–238.
Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. Atlantic Monthly, 47–61.
Dalton, B., Pisha, B., Coyne, P., Eagleton, M., & Deysher, S. (2002). Engaging the text: Reciprocal teaching and questioning strategies in a scaffolded learning environment. Final report to the U.S. Office of Special Education. Peabody, MA: CAST.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X034003003.
diSessa, A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Engelbart, D. C. (1995). Toward augmenting the human intellect and boosting our collective IQ. Communications of the ACM, 38(8), 30–33.
Gee, J. P. (2009). Digital media and learning as an emerging field, part I: How we got here. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2), 13–23. doi: 10.1162/ijlm.2009.0011.
Kay, A. (1998). [Email correspondence to Jonathan Smith]. Vision and reality of hypertext and graphical user interfaces. Retrieved January 12, 2012 from www.mprove.de/diplom/mail/kay.html
Kay, A., & Goldberg, A. (1977). Personal dynamic media. Computer, 10(3), 31–41. doi:10.1109/C-M.1977.217672.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Kloo, A., & Zigmond, N. (2008). Coteaching revisited: Redrawing the blueprint. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 12–20. doi: 10.3200/PSFL.52.2.12-20.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Lee, C. D., & Spratley, A. (2006). Reading in the disciplines and the challenges of adolescent literacy. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation.
Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Merchant, G. (2007). Writing the future in the digital age. Literacy, 41, 118–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9345.2007.00469.x.
Mills, K. A. (2010). A review of the “digital turn” in the new literacy studies. Review of Educational Research, 80, 246–271. doi: 10.3102/0034654310364401.
Mishra, P., & Koelher, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.
Nelson, T. H. (1992). Literary machines: The report on, and of, Project Xanadu concerning word processing, electronic publishing, hypertext, thinkertoys, tomorrow’s intellectual revolution, and certain other topics including knowledge, education and freedom. Sausalito, CA: Mindful Press.
Österholm, M. (2004). Reading mathematical texts: Cognitive processes and mental representations. Paper presented to Discussion Group 14 at the 10th international congress on mathematics education, Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved January 12, 2012 from http://www.icme-organisers.dk/dg14/DG14-Magnus%20Osterholm.pdf
Österholm, M. (2006). Metacognition and reading criteria for comprehension of mathematics texts. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 289–296). Prague: PME.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Rea, P. J., & Connell, J. (2005). Minding the fine points of coteaching. Education Digest, 71(1), 29–35.
Remillard, J. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teacher learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text [Special issue]. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 331–350.
Roschelle, J., Shechtman, N., Tatar, D., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Empson, S., et al. (2010). Integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing middle school mathematics: Three large-scale studies. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 833–878. doi:10.3102/0002831210367426.
Rose, D., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (Eds.). (2005). The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. C., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., et al. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic.
Schulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.
Sfard, A., & McClain, K. (2002). Analyzing tools: Perspectives on the role of designed artifacts in mathematics learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 153–161. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS11,2-3n_1.
Shreyar, S., Zolkower, B., & Perez, S. (2010). Thinking aloud together: A teacher’s semiotic mediation of a whole-class conversation about percents. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73, 21–53. doi: 10.1007/s10649-009-9203-3.
Silverman, J., & Clay, E. (2010). Online asynchronous collaboration in mathematics teacher education and the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching. The Teacher Educator, 45, 54–73. doi: 10.1080/08878730903386831.
Stein, M. K. (2008). Teaching and learning mathematics: How instruction can foster the knowing and understanding of number. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Subject-specific instructional methods and activities (pp. 111–144). Bingly, UK: JAI Press.
U.S. Department of Education & National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The condition of education 2007 (NCES Publication No. 2007-064). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Van Garderen, D., Scheuermann, A., Jackson, C., & Hampton, D. (2009). Supporting the collaboration of special educators and general educators to teach students who struggle with mathematics: An overview of the research [Special issue]. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 56–78. doi: 10.1002/pits.20354.
Weinberg, A., & Wiesner, E. (2011). Understanding mathematics textbooks through reader-oriented theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76, 49–63. doi: 10.1007/s10649-010-9264-3.
Acknowledgements
We thank José Blackorby, Janet Bowers, John Brecht, Pamela La Page, and many other members of the Dynabook team for their helpful input and feedback. This material is based on work supported by NSF under Grant No. 0918339. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roschelle, J., Courey, S., Patton, C., Murray, E. (2013). Dynabooks: Supporting Teachers to Engage All Learners in Key Literacies. In: Mouza, C., Lavigne, N. (eds) Emerging Technologies for the Classroom. Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4696-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4696-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-4695-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-4696-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)