ArticlePDF Available
CounCil for learning Disabilities
A Publication of the Council for Learning Disabilities April 2018
In This Issue . . .
President’s Message .........................1
Research to Practice .........................2
2017–2018 CLD Board of Trustees .............6
40th Annual International Conference ..........7
Committee & Chapter News .................8
CLD Mission & Vision .......................9
CLD News & Notes ........................9
Search for Outstanding Dissertations ...........9
President’s Message
Over the last year, a number of high
profile issues have compelled people to
begin speaking up about intolerable be-
havior. Movements have been launched
to demand that we, as a society, expect
better of each other—particularly those
in positions of leadership or power. Al-
though the changes are encouraging, it
is regrettable that they are being made after problems have
reached a crisis stage. The better approach would be to take
steps proactively to prevent the circumstances from occur-
ring in the first place. The preventative approach aligns with
the efforts of organizations, such as the Council for Learning
Disabilities (CLD), to establish positive norms for members.
To that end, we recently posted a Statement of Ethics
and Standards on the CLD website. This product was devel-
oped by our Liaison Committee co-chairs, Debi Gartland
and Roberta Strosnider, with input from the Executive
Committee. Among the many important ideas the 243-word
statement communicates, some form of the word “profes-
sional” is used eight times. That is 2 to 3 mentions in each
of the three sections of the statement. In particular, I hope
you will note the emphasis on qualities such as professional
integrity, professional competency, collaboration, advocacy,
and non-discrimination. These are all a part of CLD’s theme
for the current year and of our work in this field every year.
When I was a doctoral student, one of my early course
assignments was to review various professional organiza-
tions’ standards for ethical professional conduct when engag-
ing in research related to students with disabilities. In looking
back at that paper for the first time in over a decade, it struck
me that the common themes I identified then could be ap-
plied to CLD’s statement today: (a) upholding the reputation
of the profession, (b) protecting the rights of individuals, and
(c) working for the common good. The standards address the
potential influence our actions might have in immediate and
broader contexts.
Similar kinds of guiding principles can be identified in
the dispositions on which we evaluate our pre-service teacher
candidates, and they are reflected in the educator conduct
codes of many states (e.g., Alaska, Iowa, Oregon, Penn-
sylvania, and Texas). Teachers have been stripped of their
licenses for behaviors such as cheating on graduate course-
work, stealing students’ prescription drugs, failing to report
child abuse, making personal purchases on a school account,
and having inappropriate relationships with students. These
are extreme cases that can lull us into a sense of complacency
about our own professional conduct because we are not do-
ing anything as egregious as that.
Because we all can benefit from self-reflection and
recalibration, I invite you to engage in dialogue with your
colleagues about CLD’s ethics and standards to develop a
shared understanding of what they mean. You can try using
the following questions as springboards for your discussion:
• Whatdothesestatementsmeanyouwouldexpectto
see someone in our field doing or not doing?
• Isthereadditionalinformationthatwouldbeneces-
sary to help someone new to our field understand
these statements and the ways in which the state-
ments apply to our work?
• Howshouldweholdeachotheraccountablefor
exemplifying these standards?
Thank you for your stewardship of our profession!
Deborah Reed
CLD President
(continued on page 3)
Increasing numbers of students with learning disabilities
2010), with more than 68% of students with LD spending
80% or more of their instructional day outside of special edu-
et al., 2017). While having access to general education is
promising, students with LD continue to require a variety of
supports. To address both the needs of students with LD and
increasing concerns over accountability, all teachers must
implement sound instructional strategies to improve positive
academic outcomes for all students including those with LD
(IDEA, 2004). Additionally, middle and high school teachers
are expected to not only teach their content area standards
but are also expected to support reading achievement for all
Struggling readers in the secondary grades, including
students with LD, have had such a long history of difficul-
ties and frustrations during their schooling that they often de-
velop coping strategies for reading difficult texts, including
gen, 2014). Due to a lack of confidence and low motivation
for reading (Baker, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 1998; Bryant,
read less often (Bryant et al., 2003), and therefore acquire less
vocabulary knowledge than non-struggling readers (Baker
et al., 1998). As a result, many students with LD may find
it difficult to access new information (Brigham, Brigham,
Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2011) in content area courses that
are heavily laden with unfamiliar, multisyllabic, content-
use effective strategies, including explicit and systematic
reading instruction, can improve outcomes for all struggling
ent article presents evidence-based instructional methods that
teachers can employ for selecting, teaching, and practicing
essential vocabulary to promote improved access to general
education curriculum.
Word Selection and Preteaching Vocabulary
The vast number of new words secondary students encounter
is astonishing, upwards of 10,000 new words annually, and
the majority are content specific, multisyllabic words that are
area classes such as science and social studies, students are
required to navigate many different kinds of expository text,
and numerous classroom activities are based on the concepts
contained in those texts. The language of math, too, is diffi-
cult to understand because it lacks many of the context clues
found in other kinds of texts. Also, math contains many dif-
ferent abstract symbols that need to be taught explicitly (Bry-
rarely part of students’ everyday vocabulary, so to engage in
the content, students need to learn this specialized vocabulary
(Kamil, Borman, Dole, Kral, Salinger, & Torgesen, 2008).
Students with LD find it challenging to learn new con-
tent area vocabulary that is attached to unfamiliar concepts
(Brigham et al., 2011). Preteaching content area vocabulary
can build background and provide a context for the content
being taught (National Reading Panel 2000; Jitendra, Ed-
wards, Sacks, & Jacobson, 2004). Research recommends
choosing 5–8 words from a selected text (Baker et al., 2014).
When choosing these words, teachers should select critical
words, academic words, and challenging words (Graves,
Critical words are words that are crucial to the under-
standing of the text and frequently appear within text materi-
als. Critical words are the words that students need to know
to be able to discuss the text, to understand test questions
about the text, and to compose written responses. Critical
words can include the bolded words, underlined, or high-
lighted words often found in textbooks. Also, critical words
when a math standard reads, “Draw polygons in the coordi-
nate plane given coordinates for the vertices” (CCSS.Math.
Content.6.G.A.3 retrieved from http://www.corestandards
.org/Math/Content/6/G/), the student will need to under-
stand and interact with the critical words: polygon, coordi-
nate plane, and vertices.
Academic words are words that are seen and repeatedly
experienced across content areas (Love, Spies, & Morgan,
2017), and are often part of the instructions for a task (e.g.,
compare and contrast the characteristics of snakes and turtles,
construct a right angle, or summarize the causes of WWI).
Academic words too can be extracted from content area stan-
dards and can be found in multiple content-area standards.
ties of two functions each represented in a different way
Research to Practice
The Explicit Connection: Vocabulary and Secondary Students with LD
Lydia Gerzel-Short Rhonda Miller Jeremy R. Mills
Texas A&M University–San Antonio Coastal Carolina University Wright State University
(continued on page 4)
(Research to Practice, continued from page 2)
(algebraically, graphically, numerically in tables, or by
verbal descriptions)” (CCSS.Math.Content.HSF.IF.C.9
retrieved from
Content/HSF/IF/C/9/) while a standard for social studies reads
“Compare and contrast treatments of the same topic in several
primary and secondary sources” (CCSS.ELALiteracy.RH.9-
10.9 retrieved from
Literacy/RH/9-10/9/). In both tasks, the student is asked to
look at two different items and talk about how they are alike
and different. Teachers should teach academic words to sup-
port students’ access to a variety of content area texts.
Challenging words are words or phrases that are not
readily found in dictionaries and require explicit instruc-
tion. Such words include idiomatic expressions (e.g., “all
in the same boat”) and homonyms. Challenging words can
also include words that have different pronunciations, mean-
ings, and parts of speech (e.g., produce = to make; produce
= foods which are fruits and vegetables). Challenging words
are essential to understanding text and often can only be un-
derstood within the context they are being used. Teachers
should teach challenging words because students with LD
often struggle with the pragmatic use of language and can
misinterpret the meaning of vocabulary.
The decision to teach critical words, academic words,
and challenging words either in isolation or simultaneously
can be based on instruction designed in consideration of stu-
dents’ prior knowledge and individual needs. Teachers teach
critical words when the focus is on accessing the content,
and teachers teach academic words when the focus is on
“understanding academic texts across a range of disciplines”
(Beach,Sanchez,Flynn,& O’Connor,2015,p.36).Chal-
lenging words are taught when typical comprehension strat-
egiestodecodevocabularywill notwork.Forall ofthese
vocabulary words, explicit instruction reduces the potential
for misinterpretation of unfamiliar words.
Teaching Through Explicit Instruction
To teach these new and difficult words to struggling readers,
the use of explicit instruction. Explicit instruction is an effec-
tive teaching strategy for students with LD because its direct
and systematic approach provides students with scaffolded
supports to aid in learning new material in small, manageable
biguously presents information while providing more time
use of explicit instruction strategies establishes an instruc-
tional routine that helps to reduce the cognitive load of stu-
dents with LD and provides multiple exposures to the target
a new word by modeling the pronunciation of the word and
then provides a clear and concise student-friendly definition.
starting with a dictionary definition and changing any diffi-
cult words to student-friendly words. Next, the teacher illus-
trates the new word by providing examples (e.g., a sentence
that uses the word, visuals that represent the word, etc.).
Students are engaged in a fast-paced exchange of teacher
ate teacher feedback as the teacher checks for understanding
throughout the lesson.
Explicit instruction provides opportunities for students
to interact with the target words and can be used to teach
many aspects of vocabulary such as the pronunciation and
that students already know. Additional extensions of target
word instruction can include different forms or derivations of
Opportunities to Practice and Interact
with Target Words
Secondary students require at least 12–17 different exposures
gen, 2014). Repeated exposures to new target vocabulary
words should include interactions with student-friendly defi-
nitions, parts of speech, identification of various attributes of
T: This word is ratify. You try it. What word?
S: Ratify.
T: Yes, ratify. Ratify means to officially approve a document,
usually a government document. What does ratify mean?
S: Officially approve a document.
T: Correct. Ratify means to officially approve a document.
People can ratify treaties. Governments can ratify a constitu-
tional amendment, a bill, or a declaration of war. If I say that
Congress is going to approve a government document, I would
say they are going to what?
S: Ratify it.
T: Yes. Ratify. Samuel Adams was a member of the group of
statesmen who ratified the U.S. Constitution. Remember when
we discussed the Sons of Liberty and Samuel Adams? He was
elected to the Massachusetts convention and was a part of
the Constitution’s ratification. Ratification comes from the word
ratify. Samuel Adams was someone who officially approved the
Constitution which is another way to say that the Constitution
was _____.
S: Ratified.
T: Yes, ratified.
Figure 1. Sample script for teaching pronunciation
and definition of the target word, Ratify. T=teacher;
(continued on page 5)
(Research to Practice, continued from page 3)
target words, and should include opportunities for students
to say, read, and write the words within context (Archer &
One way to provide opportunities to interact with vo-
cabulary is through the use of graphic organizers. The use of
graphic organizers (GOs) has been effective in helping stu-
dents with and without LD to learn content material across
(GOs) are visual devices that provide an organizational sys-
tem for information and reduce the cognitive load for students
with LD by reducing the language demands of the task (Ellis
level of anxiety many students with disabilities carry into the
classroom before the delivery of any instruction (Singleton,
target vocabulary might be to use a GO that represents the
life cycle of a butterfly. Students would work with target vo-
cabulary to identify life cycle phases while building a visual
support. A Frayer Model(Frayer,Frederick,&Klausmeier,
1969) is another example of a graphic organizer. In this ex-
ample, students interact with the target words by completing
a GO consisting of four connecting blocks with the target
word in the center of the blocks. Students write the semantic
attributes of the target word (e.g. rhombus). Attributes may
include characteristics, antonyms, synonyms, examples, non-
target vocabulary words, students gain a deeper understand-
ing of the meaning of target vocabulary words.
GOs are most effective when the teacher explains the
reason for using the GO and uses explicit instruction to teach
ety of GOs that can be differentiated to support students. The
purpose of using a GO is to support the students in creating
a connection between the textual content and the concepts
what GO to use, teachers should consider the content-area
ing a new target word such as evapotranspiration, a semantic
ample connecting words conceptually frame known and un-
an example of a semantic features GO of the concept poly-
gon. In this example, students are framing the target word
polygon into the various features/attributes of the word.
GOs extend learning opportunities for new vocabulary
cepts and connecting to previously learned concepts. Teach-
ers who explicitly model how to use GOs and when to use
Gos can assist students with LD in becoming more efficient
learners whereby decreasing cognitive demands and increas-
Engaging secondary students with LD in vocabulary devel-
opment is essential. Often, students with LD struggle with
the basic understanding of words which significantly im-
pacts content texts and instruction. Bypass strategies such
as dictionary work do not provide the adequate scaffolding
of vocabulary (Bryant et al., 2003) because students are not
actively engaged in learning new words. Incorporating ex-
plicit vocabulary instruction with multiple opportunities for
T: This word is polygon. You try it. What word?
S: Polygon.
T: Yes, Polygon. A polygon is a special type of shape. A polygon
has to have 3 or more sides. How many sides?
S: 3 or more
T: Yes, 3 or more. All sides have to be straight, no curves, only
straight. So a polygon has to have at least 3 sides, and the sides
all have to be what?
S: Straight.
T: Yes, straight. A polygon also has to be closed. That means
that all the sides meet at corners and there is no overlap.
(points to a square that has sides extending beyond the ver-
tices). This shape is NOT a polygon because its sides overlap.
(points to a shape that is open). This shape is NOT a polygon
because it is open. See? The sides do not touch here. So, a
polygon has to have at least 3 sides, all sides have to be straight,
and the polygon has to be what?
S: Closed.
T: Yes, closed. So a square (points to a square) has 4 sides,
which is more than 3. All the sides are straight, and it is a
closed shape without overlap. So a square is a polygon. Then if a
shape has 3 or more sides that are all straight and the shape is
closed, we can call it a what?
S: Polygon.
T: Correct, polygon.
Figure 2. Sample script for teaching attributes of the
target word, polygon. T=teacher; S=students.
Figure 3. Sample script for teaching derivations of a
target word, transpiration. T=teacher; S=students.
T: This word is transpiration. You try it. What word?
S: Transpiration
T: Yes, transpiration is a noun. Transpiration means the passage
of water vapor from a living body through membranes or
pores. What does transpiration mean? What part of speech?
S: Passage of water vapor from a living body through mem-
branes or pores. It is a noun.
T: Correct. Another variation of transpiration is transpire. This
word is a verb meaning to take place or be revealed or to pass
vapor. What word?
S: Transpire.
T: Yes, transpire.
practice will help all struggling readers, but especially stu-
dents with LD, develop deeper meaning from the materials
being taught and will provide more opportunities for students
to become actively engaged in learning target vocabulary
words and difficult content that might have otherwise been
accessible to master.
Author Note: Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Lydia Gerzel-Short (Lydia.Gerzel-Short@ Texas A&M University-San Antonio, One Uni-
versity Way, San Antonio, TX 78224
Archer,A.L.,&Hughes,C.A.(2011).Explicit instruction: Effective
and efficient teaching. Guilford Press.
Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P.,
Morris, J., . . . & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching Aca-
demic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary
and Middle School. IES Practice Guide. NCEE 2014-4012. What
Works Clearinghouse.
Baker, S. K., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1998). Vocabulary
acquisition: Research bases. In D. C. Simmons & E. J. Kame’enui
(Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse
learning needs (pp. 183–218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Beach,K. D.,Sanchez,V.,Flynn,L. J.,& O’Connor,R.E.(2015).
Teaching academic vocabulary to adolescents with learning dis-
abilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 48, 36–44.
education and students with learning disabilities. Learning Dis-
abilities Research & Practice, 26, 223–232.
behaviors of students with LD who have teacher-identified math
weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 168–177.
cabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities: A re-
view of the research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 117–128.
Cortiella,C.,& Horowitz,S.H.(2014).Thestateof learningdisabili-
ties:Facts,trendsandemergingissues.New York: National Center
for Learning Disabilities.
Ellis,E.,&Howard,P.(2007).Graphic organizers:Powertools for
teaching students with learning disabilities. Current Practice
Alerts, 13(1), 1–4.
Foorman,B.,Beyler,N.,Borradaile,K.,Coyne,M., Denton,C.A.,
port Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten through 3rd
(continued on page 6)
Figure 4. Semantic connections of the target word, evapotranspiration.
Figure 5. This graphic organizer provides the semantic
features/attributes of the target word, polygon.
(Research to Practice, continued from page 4)
Grade. Educator’s Practice Guide. NCEE 2016-4008. National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Graves,M.F.(2009).Teaching individual words: One size does not fit
all. Teachers College Press.
Hougen, M. (2014). Evidencebased reading instruction for ado-
lescents, grades 6–12 (Document No. IC-13). Retrieved from
UniversityofFlorida,Collaboration forEffectiveEducator,De-
velopment, Accountability, and Reform Center website: http://
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L.
108-446, 20 U.S.C. $ 1400 et seq..
Jitendra, A.K., Edwards, L. L., Sacks, G., & Jacobson, L.A. (2004).
What research says about vocabulary instruction for students with
learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70, 299–322.
Kamil, M.L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., &
Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective
Classroom and Intervention Practices. IES Practice Guide. NCEE
2008-4027. National Center for Education Evaluation and Re-
gional Assistance.
Kuder, S. J. (2017). Vocabulary instruction for secondary students with
reading disabilities: An updated research review. Learning Dis-
ability Quarterly, 0731948717690113.
(Research to Practice, continued from page 5)Love, M.L., Spies, T. G., & Morgan, J. J. (2017). Using e-books to
acquire foundational academic vocabulary. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 53, 88–93.
BullockMann,F.,and Hinz,S. (2017).TheConditionofEdu-
cation 2017 (NCES 2017-144). U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less
restrictive settings? Journal of Special Education, 46, 131–140.
man Development (US).(2000). Report Of the national reading
panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment
of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications
for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Insti-
Singleton,S.M.,&Filce,H.G.(2015). Graphicorganizersforsec-
ondary students with learning disabilities. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 48, 110–117.
2017–2018 CLD Board of Trustees
Deborah Reed
University of Iowa
Sheri Berkeley
George Mason University
Vice President
Lindy Crawford
Texas Christian University
Past President
Mary Beth Calhoon
University of Miami
Minyi Shih Dennis
Lehigh University
Brittany Hott
Texas A&M–Commerce
Committee Chairs
Kat Pfannenstiel
American Institutes for
Kelli Cummings
University of Maryland
Leadership Development
Min Mize
Diane Bryant
University of Texas at Austin
Roberta Strosnider
Towson University
Debi Gartland
Towson University
CLD Editors
LDQ Co-Editors
Diane P. Bryant
Brian R. Bryant
The University of Texas at
ISC Co-Editors
Randall Boone
Kyle Higgins
University of Nevada, Las
LD Forum Editor
Joseph Morgan
University of Nevada, Las
LD Forum Asst. Editor
Jacquelyn Chovanes
Lehigh University
Heather Haynes Smith
Trinity University
Judy Voress
Anne Brawand
Kutztown University of PA
Minyi Shih Dennis
Lehigh University
Brenda Barrio
Washington State University
Technology Committee
Joseph Morgan
University of Nevada, Las
Lisa Morin
Old Dominion University
CLD is Turning 40!
40th Annual International
Council for Learning Disabilities
Portland, Oregon | October 11-12, 2018
Mark your calendars for a fantastic learning experience!
The 2018 International CLD Conference will be held in
Portland Oregon, October 11–12, 2018. Join us at the
beautifully redesigned, Portland Marriott Downtown
Waterfront Hotel in vibrant downtown Portland.
LAC Co-Chairs
Maria Peterson-Ahmad
and Nancy Nelson,
along with the LAC are
diligently working on
identifying sponsorships,
coordinating volunteers,
and finding activities in
Portland for conference
attendees. Please contact
Maria Peterson-Ahmad or
Nancy Nelson if you are in-
terested in lending a hand!
Book your room today!
Hotel reservations are
now open!
Conference registration
will be opening in April,
so be sure to stay
connected to CLD for
future updates.
Connect with CLD
Facebook & Twitter
2018 Conference
Are you interested in
sponsoring the CLD
Sponsorship is essential
to the conference’s
success. The conference
committee is now
accepting sponsorships!
For more information,
please contact
Jessica Turtura.
Breaking News!
2018 J. Lee Wiederholt Distinguished Lecturer
We are excited to announce Donald D. Hammill, Ed.D.
of Pro-Ed, Inc. Hammill Institute on Disabilities will serve
as the J. Lee Wiederholt Distinguished Lecturer.
Program Chair
Dr. Lindy Crawford, CLD Vice-President, serves as the
Program Chair for the 40th Annual Conference.
Dr. Crawford anticipates notifying presenters of accepted
presentations in mid-May.
(continued on page 9)
Committee & Chapter News
Updates from Colorado CLD
The Colorado Council for Learning Disabilities held the
18thyearofMath on the “PLANES” conference Febru-
ary 23rd and 24th. The keynote speaker was Dr.Barbara
Dougherty. We had middle and high school teachers from
across the state come and learn effective mathematical strate-
gies for struggling learners in the classroom. Below are a
sample of “take-a-ways” from conference participants:
• IverymuchappreciatedBarb’semphasisonmath-
ematical language and developmentally appropriate
methodology and her modeling of this throughout the
• Asaresearcher,Dr.Doughertyisveryknowledge-
apparent as she shared evidenced-based practices and
activities that were classroom tested.
• Iwasreticenttousegamesinmyclassroom.
Dr. Dougherty demonstrated how activities in a
game format are powerful ways to engage students
while reinforcing conceptual understanding.
• Iknewmanipulativesweregoodtools;butIdidn’t
know how to use them effectively to extend the
thought processes. This workshop helped me to see
how to use manipulatives to help all my students
develop a deeper understanding of mathematic
• Preciselanguagecreatesunderstandingandreduces
• Iwillencourageteacherstothinkintermsofrevers-
ibility, generalization, and flexibility questions.
• Thisreinforcestheimportanceofscaffolding,build-
ing on what students know and previously learned.
• Teachingintegeroperationsusingtwocoloredcoun-
ters to express “zero pairs” will be a game changer
for my kids!
• Weneedtosupportconceptualunderstanding.Pay
now or pay later—making connections between con-
crete, representational and abstract concurrently . . .
CCLD also recognized two scholarship award recipi-
ents who are both earning a reading interventionist degree.
Both received $1800 to put towards their graduate program.
matical models when solving equations and inequalities. The
webinar was well attended and focused on visual models to
help students become confident in their solving of one-, two-,
and multi-step equations and equalities.
Updates from Maryland CLD
MCLD Joins Maryland Council for Exceptional
Children to Co-Sponsor 2018 Winter Conference
The Maryland CLD Chapter and Maryland CEC again joined
forces to plan and sponsor a professional development con-
ference on Saturday, April 7, 2018, held at Loyola University
Graduate Center in Columbia, MD. The conference was en-
Needs of Our Student.” Ms. Kara Ball, the 2018 DoDEA
State Teacher of the Year and one of four finalists for 2018
National Teacher of the Year, was the keynote speaker at the
the opportunity to attend breakout sessions. The co-sponsor-
ship is made possible as a result of a generous CLD Chapter
Debi Gartland, MCLD President
Updates from Virginia CLD
The Virginia Council for Learning Disabilities is excited to
share information regarding our upcoming one-day Sympo-
sium to be held on April 21, 2018 at Marymount Univer-
sity, RowleyHall,2807 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA
22207. The theme of our Symposium this year is Supporting
Culturally Diverse Learners.
Registration and continental breakfast begins at 8
a.m. Symposium events run from 8:30 a.m.–5 p.m., begin-
ning with a dynamic keynote address, followed by an awards
luncheon, then an afternoon of more than a dozen engaging
break-out sessions to enrich and inspire your work with stu-
dents with learning disabilities.
Our Keynote Speaker is Vicky G. Spencer, Ph.D,
BCBA-D. Dr. Spencer holds a doctorate in special educa-
tion, and she is also a certified Educational Diagnostician
and a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA-D). In ad-
ditiontoteachingfor JohnsHopkinsUniversity,shehasa
private practice, Beyond Diagnosis, where she works as
aninternational specialeducationconsultant. Forthe past
fourteen years, she has been actively involved in research
in examining the use of effective academic and behavioral
strategies for ALL students and the effectiveness of these
strategies among students with disabilities. She has numer-
ous publications in refereed journals of high quality in the
field of special education and has published five books that
focus on teaching students with disabilities. Dr. Spencer, a
(Committee & Chapter News, continued from page 8)
CLD Mission & Vision
Mission Statement: The Council for Learning Disabilities
(CLD), an international organization composed of profession-
als who represent diverse disciplines, is committed to en-
hancing the education and quality of life for individuals with
learning disabilities across the life span. CLD accomplishes
this by promoting and disseminating evidence-based research
and practices related to the education of individuals with
learning disabilities. In addition, CLD fosters (a) collaboration
among professionals; (b) development of leaders in the field;
and (c) advocacy for policies that support individuals with
learning disabilities at local, state, and national levels.
Vision Statement: All individuals with learning disabili-
ties are empowered to achieve their potential.
education and recently relocated back to the United States
for the past two and a half years. She is currently serving
as the President for the Council for Exceptional Children’s
Division of International Special Education and Services
(DISES). She has over 25 years of experience in the United
States as a classroom teacher, university professor, disability
specialist, teacher trainer, and parent consultant.
Symposium page for all of the information: http://vcld.
Rooms at the Marriott Portland Downtown Waterfront
hotel in Portland, Oregon for the 40th International
Conference on Learning Disabilities are now available!
Book yours today at
Share your thoughts on what it means to be our stan-
dardsandethicsstatementonourFacebookpage!Visit to engage in the conversation!
Nominations for Teacher of the Year (
( are due by May 1, 2018!
LD Forum is currently seeking manuscript submissions,
including submissions for two new columns – “Point/
Counterpoint” and “Issues and Trends in Learning Dis-
abilities”.Formanuscriptsubmissionguidelines,visit We are also seeking individuals
to serve on our review board. Contact Joseph Morgan,
Editor of LD Forum, at for
more information.
Check out the latest issues of Learning Disability
Quarterly and Intervention in School and Clinic! Also,
consider submitting your work for publication in our
flagship journals!
Not currently a member of CLD? Join us at!
The Research Committee of CLD is Searching
for Outstanding Dissertations!
In an effort to promote and acknowledge research, the Council for Learning Disabilities recognizes an outstanding
researcher who submits a manuscript-length paper about learning disabilities that is based on a doctoral disserta-
tion completed within the last five years. The submission must not be under consideration for, or the recipient of,
another award. The award recipient is a guest at the annual international conference, and receives a complimentary
registration and CLD membership or renewal. The recipient is also presented with a certificate of recognition and
a $500 honorarium to be presented at the 2018 International Conference on Learning Disabilities in Portland,
Oregon. The recipient will be profiled in LD Forum (the CLD newsletter) and the national CLD website. Addition-
ally, the recipient’s paper will be submitted for possible publication in Learning Disability Quarterly. Because of
this consideration, the submitted manuscript cannot be simultaneously submitted to or already published in another
Forcompleteinformation onsubmittingtoCLD’sOutstandingResearcherAwardcompetitionpleasevisit
To apply for this award, please submit your materials via email to Dr. Kelli Cummings, Research Committee
Chair ( The deadline for submissions is May 1, 2018, 5:00 pm Eastern time.
This practical, hands-on guidebook offers support for your first years in the classroom by presenting strategies to overcome ten common challenges. Expertly curated by experienced educators, this book delivers quick access to timely advice, applicable across a range of educational settings. With contributions from National Board-Certified Teachers, National Teachers of the Year, and other educators involved in robust induction and mentoring programs, The New Teacher’s Guide to Overcoming Common Challenges provides: • Wise and practical tips from accomplished veterans and successful new teachers from across rural, suburban, and urban settings; • Web access to an online teacher community and customizable resources created by the book’s authors that can be quickly downloaded for immediate use in the classroom; • Newly commissioned material that addresses the shift to remote learning brought about by the world pandemic. Accessible and stimulating, this book is designed for a wide range of users, including PK-12 school districts who offer new teacher induction programming, traditional and alternative teacher preparation programs and teacher cadet programs, and individual in-service teachers. Don’t face the challenges alone—learn from those who have been there!
Full-text available
Research suggests students with learning disabilities often have trouble connecting new and prior knowledge, distinguishing essential and nonessential information, and applying comprehension strategies (DiCecco & Gleason, 2002; Vaughn & Edmonds, 2006). Graphic organizers have been suggested as tools educators can use to facilitate critical thinking and prepare students for independent learning. Graphic organizers that are based on the task to be completed, as well as the thinking and learning needs of the student using the organizer, help foster critical thinking. This article recommends specific graphic organizers based on characteristics of students with learning disabilities in relation to reading comprehension at the secondary level.
Secondary students identified as English language learners or with learning disabilities present diverse vocabulary and academic challenges related to their exceptional language needs. Limited academic vocabulary may hinder students in accessing academic content and serve as a barrier to achievement. The literature has documented the use of multimedia-delivered instruction as a support in the development of content area academic vocabulary. One such tool, electronic books (i.e., e-books), can be an effective multimedia resource used to supplement standards-based instruction and preteach content area vocabulary specifically designed for students with exceptional language needs. This article describes methods for analyzing content standards and developing differentiated e-books to preteach academic vocabulary to support students with exceptional language needs in acquiring foundational academic vocabulary. The selection and use of specific tools based on students’ academic and linguistic needs will also be illustrated.
This article presents an update and extension of the research on instructional methods for vocabulary learning by secondary-age students with learning disabilities. Seven studies that have been published since the last comprehensive review of the research were located. Four instructional methods were found to be the most effective: mnemonic instruction, learning strategies that utilized morphemic analysis, direct instruction, and multimedia instruction. In addition, peer-mediated instruction was found to be a successful approach for supporting vocabulary learning, although it was not possible to separate the effects of peer mediation from the instructional methods used. Implications for classroom practice and for future research are discussed.
This article summarizes published research on vocabulary instruction involving students with learning disabilities. Nineteen vocabulary studies that comprised 27 investigations were located. Study interventions gleaned from the review included keyword or mnemonic approaches, cognitive strategy instruction (e.g., semantic features analysis), direct instruction (DI), constant time delay (CTD), activity-based methods, and computer-assisted instruction (CAI). While findings for the keyword, cognitive strategy, DI, CTD, and activity-based procedures were generally effective in enhancing vocabulary performance for students with learning disabilities, results for CAI were mixed. The studies are discussed with regard to study characteristics (e.g., intervention intensity, instructional arrangement). Implications and recommendations for future research and classroom practice in teaching vocabulary to students with learning disabilities are discussed.
Educator's Practice Guide. NCEE 2016-4008. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance
  • Grade
Grade. Educator's Practice Guide. NCEE 2016-4008. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Teaching individual words: One size does not fit all
  • M F Graves
Graves, M. F. (2009). Teaching individual words: One size does not fit all. Teachers College Press.
Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development
  • M Hougen
Hougen, M. (2014). Evidence­based reading instruction for adolescents, grades 6-12 (Document No. IC-13). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: http:// Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. $ 1400 et seq..
Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices. IES Practice Guide. NCEE 2008-4027
  • M L Kamil
  • G D Borman
  • J Dole
  • C C Kral
  • T Salinger
  • J Torgesen
Kamil, M.L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices. IES Practice Guide. NCEE 2008-4027. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings
  • J Mcleskey
  • E Landers
  • P Williamson
  • D Hoppey
McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2010). Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? Journal of Special Education, 46, 131-140. doi:10.1177/0022466910376670
Report Of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US).(2000). Report Of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.