本研究目的為以通用學習設計(Universal Design for Learning) 原則融入英語自然發音補救教學，針對國小英語學習低成就學生多元且個別化的學習需求，納入補救教學課程規劃。研究對象為 18位來自新北市淡水區的英語學習低成就弱勢學童(國小三至六年級)分為4組。每組個別進行6小時之英語自然發音補救教學。本研究採行動研究法，經過4輪次的教學實施與課程修正，完成通用學習設計融入英語自然發音補救教學之教材、教案設計與教學活動策略建議表。研究工具包括前後測、形成性評量、學習滿意度問卷、教學設計修正紀錄、學生訪談紀錄、課堂觀察記錄、省思札記等。經分析整理，得到以下研究結論：一、通用學習設計能增廣學習路徑，輔助教學設計、提升知能，使學生能順暢進行英語詞彙認讀與拼寫任務。學習者之前後測成績差距為62.19分，t值為32.82， p＜.01，達顯著性差異。三、本次英語自然發音補救教學行動能持續引起學生學習興趣，學習滿意度問卷量化部分達4.56分 (5評鑑等級)，顯示學習者對課程滿意，質性資料顯示後續課程參與意願高。本研究貢獻在於將低成就學習者之差異化需求，納入課程設計重點，協助學習者立即應用習得知能，強化成功經驗，並提出實際教學活動之建議。

The purpose of this study is to apply universal design for learning (UDL) educational frameworks to developing remedial phonics lessons which accommodate learning needs for low-achieving Taiwanese elementary school students. Under UDL frameworks, cognitive accesses were increased. Eighteen at-risk, low-achieving elementary school students (grades 3-6) in a suburban area of New Taipei City in Taiwan joined this remedial program. Participants were divided into four groups. Each group received 6-hour phonics remedial lessons. Four rounds of course revision and modification were conducted during the research process. Data collection included pretests and posttests, formative assessment, class modification records, course evaluation questionnaires, student interviews, observations, a reflective journal and a post‐teaching reflective analysis. A paired-samples t test was conducted to evaluate the impact of the intervention on students' scores. Significant differences were found between pretest and post test scores from pretest (M =23.68, SD =12.32) to post test (M =85.87, SD = 9.51), t (17) =32.82,  p＜.01. Results from this study suggest that UDL supports lesson designers broaden planning considerations and helps develop effective coping strategies. Student leaning result shows that students benefit by the remedial lessons on applying phonics skills to reading and spelling tasks. Results also indicate that integrating UDL principles into phonics lessons motivates and engages students in phonics learning.

中文摘要	i 
英文摘要	ii
目次	iii
表次	v
圖次	vi
第一章 緒論	1
第一節 研究背景與動機	1
第二節 研究目的	6
第三節 研究問題	6
第四節 研究範圍與限制	7
第五節 名詞釋義	9
第二章 文獻探討	11
第一節 台灣英語補救教學與現況	11
第二節 學習低成就者之特質與建議輔助策略	17
第三節 自然發音教學之定義、建議與迷思	22
第四節 通用學習設計	28
第三章 研究方法與設計	47
第一節 研究方法的選擇	47
第二節 研究架構與程序	52
第三節 研究參與者	64
第四節 研究工具	70
第五節 資料蒐集、處理與分析	74
第六節 研究效度檢核	79
第四章 研究結果	81
第一節 UDL融入英語自然發音補救教學之設計	81
第二節 學習者接受課程後之學習成效	99
第三節 學習者對課程之學習滿意度	103
第四節 UDL融入英語自然發音補救教學之省思	106
第五章 結論與建議	123
第一節 研究結論	123
第二節 建議	126
參考文獻	131
中文部份	131
外文部分	133
附錄	143
附錄一 學生需求評估問卷	143
附錄二 教材評鑑表	145
附錄三 學習滿意度問卷	146
附錄四 前後測評量	148
附錄五 講義練習單/形成性評量	151
附錄六 課堂觀察訪談記錄表/省思札記	166
附錄七 教學設計實施修正紀錄表	167
附錄八 學生訪談紀錄表	168
附錄九 自然發音補救教學多媒體課程網頁截圖	169
附錄十 課程多媒體教材Power Point部分	170
附錄十一 雛型課程單元設計教案	172
附錄十二 學生之形成性評量與課堂白板練習	177
附錄十三 學生之後測-拼寫部分	178

表次
表2-2-1  文獻紀錄中低成就學習者之共通特質與建議策略	21
表2-4-1  教育界之通用設計:型式、模型名稱、代表學者與年份整理表	29
表2-4-2  空間環境之通用設計7原則 vs教育界之通用設計9原則對照表	32
表2-4-3  UDL內涵與差異化教學內涵之對照	41
表2-4-4  ( 2005年-2015年)有實驗者參與之通用設計之教育研究文獻整理	43
表3-2-1  課程目標、單元學習目標與九年一貫指標對應表	56
表3-3-1  研究對象選取過程一覽表	68
表3-3-2  研究對象基本資料、家庭狀況、個人特質與低成就學習特質概述表	69
表3-4-1  學生需求評估問卷英語動機項目各題所屬動機特質	71
表3-4-2  專家效度名單	71
表3-4-3  研究工具與使用目的對應表	73
表3-5-1  資料來源項目及歸類代碼	76
表3-5-2  待答問題、對應研究工具、工具使用目的、資料分析方法對應表	78
表4-1-1  UDL融入英語自然發音補救教材資源與附錄對應表	81
表4-1-2  教學設計修正紀錄表	83
表4-1-3  第一階段教學行動後學習者錯誤類型總整	84
表4-1-4  第一階段教學行動檢討	88
表4-1-5  第二階段教學行動檢討	89
表4-1-6  英語自然發音補救教學單元課程設計教案	90
表4-1-7  UDL之表現面向融入自然發音補救教學策略整理	96
表4-1-8  UDL之行為和表達面向融入自然發音補救教學策略整理	97
表4-1-9  UDL之參與面向融入自然發音補救教學策略整理	98
表4-2-1  整體學習成效評量結果(前測與後測結果比較)	99
表4-3-1  整體學習滿意度量化結果	103
表4-4-1  實際教學在UDL表現面向之困境經驗、解決策略與結果	107
表4-4-2  實際教學在UDL行動和表達面向之困境經驗、解決策略與結果	109
表4-4-3  實際教學行動在UDL參與面向之困境經驗、解決策略與結果	111
圖次
圖2-2-1  六音節類型 The Six Syllable Type	25
圖2-4-1  Universal Design for Learning之腦部認知神經科學理論基礎	35
圖2-4-2  UDL之三大指導原則與架構內涵	36
圖2-4-3  UDL(通用學習設計)重點內涵檢核表	37
圖3-1-1  行動研究螺旋圖 (引自Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988)	50
圖3-2-1  第一階段教學行動研究循環圖	53
圖3-2-2  第二階段教學行動研究循環圖	54
圖3-2-3  學習內容架構	57
圖3-2-4  第一階段教學行動流程	60
圖3-2-5  第二階段教學行動流程	61
圖3-2-6  研究架構程序圖	63
圖3-6-1  研究效度建構圖 (翻譯修改自Latham, 2016)	79

中文部份
王文科、王智弘（2004）。教育研究法。台北：五南。
王世英、溫明麗、黃乃熒、許文光、陳昺菎（2007）。外籍配偶子女納入學校教育體系之課程與教學研究。臺北：國立教育資料館。
王麗雲 (2014)。基本能力的雙峰現象及因應建議。師苑鐸聲: 教育人力與專業發展，第31卷，第1期, 1- 4 
伍嘉琪 (2007)。英語學習兩樣情--淺談英語學習成就雙峰現象。師友月刊，第476期，64-66 
李家同 (2004)。學好英文沒有捷徑。台北:聯經 (序)
吳明清 (1991)。教育研究 : 基本觀念與方法之分析。台北：五南。
孫清山、黃毅志（1996）。補習教育、文化資本與教育取得。台灣社會學刊， 19，95-139。
陳怡靖、鄭燿男（2000）。台灣地區教育階層化之變遷檢證社會資本論、文化資本論及財務資本論在台灣的適用性。國家科學委員會研究彙刊：人文及 社會科學，10（3），416-434。
陳梅芳、劉安倫、廖雪華、楊美雪、林聯賓（2004）。國中數學低成就學生補救 教學成效之研究。教育部補助九十三年度鼓勵中小學教師從事行動研究期中報告，22-30。
陳惠邦（1998）。教育行動研究。台北：師大書苑。
陳淑麗 (2008)。國小弱勢學生課業輔導現況調查之研究。 台東大學教育學報 (19: 1)，頁1-32。
張芳全 (2011)。家長教育程度、文化資本、自我抱負、學習興趣與數學成就之關係研究。臺中教育大學學報: 教育類，25(1)，29-56.
張新仁 (2001)。實施補救教學之課程與教學設計。85-106
張新仁、邱上真、李素慧 (民89)。國中英語科學習困難學生之補救教學成效研究。教育學刊，16 期，163-191
張德銳、李俊達 (2007)。教學行動研究及其對國小教師教學省思影響之研究, 臺北市立教育大學學報：教育類，038(001)，0033-0066.
教育部（2000）。九年一貫課程綱要。台北市：作者。 
教育部 ( 2008)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要語文學習領域（英語）。台北市:教育部。
教育部 (2012)。補救教學基本學習內容【國民小學語文學習領域（英語）】。台北市:教育部。
教育部 (2015)。國民小學及國民中學補救教學實施方案標準作業流程手冊。台北市:教育部。
曾柏瑜 (2008)。低成就學童的有效補救教學原則。台東特教，第27期，25-29。
湯才偉 (2012)。「行動研究」對教師成長的意義：一位教師經歷的分享。載於香港中文大學主辦之第六屆兩岸四地「學校改進與夥伴協作」學術研討會(頁73-96) ，香港。
黃永和 (2013)。低成就學生的特質與輔導。新北市教育，第9期，19-22。
黃聖慧（2007）。把「背單字」變成一件有 趣又有成就感的事。英文新天地，第 16 期， 頁 4－12。
黃毅志、陳俊偉（2008）：學科補習、成績表現與升學結果 以學測成績與上 公立大學為例。教育研究集刊，54（1），117-149。
蔡清田 (2000)。教育行動研究。台北：五南。
蔡啟達 (2015)。圖解教育學。台北:五南 (第46頁) 
黎瓊麗、莊筱玉、傅敏芳(2006)。國小學童英語學習動機量表之編製。高應科大人文社會科學學報，第3期，1-33。
鍾蔚起 (2005)。臺灣地區背景不利者社會流動影響因素及相關教育政策成效之研究 (Vol. 1009405019)。中華民國政府出版品。
譚以敬、吳清山 (2009)。臺北市弱勢學生教育政策的現況及其未來因應措施之研究. Journal of Educational Administration, 8, 77-94.
蘇燕華、王天苗 (2003)。融合教育的理想與挑戰國小普通班教師的經驗。特殊教育研究學刊，民92，24期，39－62。

外文部分
Booth, A., & Dunn, J. F. (2013). Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? , Routledge.
Bost, L.W., & Riccomini, P.J. (2006). Effective instruction: An inconspicuous strategy for dropout prevention. Remedial and Special Education, 27(5), 301-311.
Bowe, Frank G. (2000) Universal Design in Education: Teaching Nontraditional Students. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Burgstahler, S. (2001). Universal Design of Instruction. Seattle: University of Washington, DO-IT. Retrieved Oct 10, 2015, from http://crc.dpidev.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/crc/pdf/univ_design_inst.pdf
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., & Kameenui, E. J. (1997). Direct instruction reading (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Carnine, D.W., Silbert J., Kame'enui E.J., Tarver S. G.(2004). Six Approaches to Phonics Instruction. In Direct Instruction Reading 4th edition, p.39. NJ: Pearson.
Carroll, J.(1995) On Methodology in the Study of Cognitive Abilities. Multivariate Behavioral Research. Vol. 30, Iss. 3, 1995. 429-452
CAST (2015, Oct. 5). About Universal Design for Learning. Retrieved Oct. 2015 from http://www.cast.org/our-work/about-udl.html#.VhJJkfmqqko
CAST (2016, June. 10).UDL Intersections-Universal Design for Learning and Universal Design. Retrieved June. 2016 from http://www.udlcenter.org/sites/udlcenter.org/files/UDL-DI%20BRIEFfinal.pdf
Center for Universal Design(2016, Mar. 30). About UD. Retrieved Mar. 2016 from https://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/about_ud.htm
Chapman, C., & King, R. (Eds.). (2009).Differentiated instructional strategies for reading in the content areas. Corwin Press.
Chu, K., Teele, N., Dewey, M. W., Albright, N., & Dewey, W. C., (2004). Computerized video time lapse study of cell cycle delay and arrest, mitotic catastrophe, apoptosis and clonogenic survival in irradiated 14-3-3σ and CDKN1A (p21) knockout cell lines. Radiation research, 162(3), 270-286.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics (Technical Report No. 403). BBN Laboratories, Cambridge, MA. Centre for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois. January, 1987.
Davies, P., Schelly, C., &Spooner, C. (2013). Measuring the Effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning Intervention in Postsecondary Education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, v26 n3, 195-220
Department of Education and Training Australia (2009). Literacy teaching guide: Phonics. Sydney: New South Wales Dept. of Education and Training
Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do race and income matter?. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 11-30.
Donnelly, M. (1987). At-risk students. ERIC Digest, 21.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No, ED292172)
Elkind, J., Cohen, K., & Murray, C. (1993). Using computer-based readers to improve reading comprehension of students with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 238-259.
Ellis, E. S., & Worthington, L. A. (1994). Research synthesis on effective teaching principles and the design of quality tools for educators (Technical Report No. 5) (pp.9-10). Eugene: University of Oregon, National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. PA: Open University Press.
Embry, P., Parker, D., McGuire, J., & Scott, S. (2005). Postsecondary disability service providers’ perceptions about implementing Universal Design for Instruction. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18(1), 34-48
Favre, L. R. (2009). Kinesthetic instructional strategies: Moving at-risk learners to higher levels. Insights on Learning Disabilities, 6(1), 29-35.
Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. Surface dyslexia, 32, 301-330.
Gardner, H (2014). Theory of Multiple Intelligences from: Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences by Howard Gardner. PSIA - Rocky Mountain Division – AASI
Gargiulo, R., & Metcalf, D. (2012). Teaching in today’s inclusive classrooms: A universal design for learning approach. Cengage Learning.
Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. W. (1997). The Gillingham manual: Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. (8th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
Gorard, S., & Smith, E. (2004). What is ‘underachievement’at school? 1.School Leadership & Management, 24(2), 205-225.
Green, L, & Casale-Giannola, D. (2011). 40 Active Learning Strategies for the Inclusive Classroom, Grades K–5(pp.8-9).  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin 
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action research: social research for social change. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C. (2012). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn't fit all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Haley-Mize, S., & Reeves, S. (2013). Universal Design for Learning and Emergent-literacy Development: Instructional Practices for Young Learners. Educational Research, Vol 79-2, pp.70-78.
Hall, T., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. (2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom: Practical applications. NY: Guilford Press.
Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction. Effective classroom practices report. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum, CAST, U.S. Office of Special Education Programs.
Harper, K. A., & DeWaters, J. (2008). A quest for website accessibility in higher education institutions. Internet & Higher Education, 11(3/4), 160-164. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.007
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. NY: Routledge.
Heacox, D. (2012).Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach all learners (Updated anniversary edition). Free Spirit Publishing.
Henderson, A. T., & Berla, N. (1994).A New generation of evidence: the family is crucial to student achievement. Washington: National Committee for Citizens in Education; Center for Law and Education, 1994.
Higbee, J. L., & Goff, E. (2008). Pedagogy and student services for institutional transformation: Implementing universal design in higher education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/passit/docs/PASS-IT-Book.pdf
Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-315, 122 Stat. 3078 (2008).
Hook, P& Jones, S (2004). The Importance of Automaticity and Fluency For Efficient Reading Comprehension; In Perspectives; Spring 2004 The International Dyslexia Association
Izzo, M. V., Murray, A., & Novak, J. (2008). The faculty perspective on universal design for learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(2), 60-72
Joseph, S., Thomas, M., Simonette, G., & Ramsook, L. (2013). The impact of differentiated instruction in a teacher education setting: Successes and challenges. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(3), p28.
Karlsone, I. (2013). Implementation of universal design for learning principles for development of spatial visualization skills of students. In Proceedings of the Conference Universal Learning Design, Brno 2013. Brno: Masaryk University, 2013. p. xx–yy. ISBN 978-80-210-6270-2. (Proceedings of the Conference Universal Learning Design, vol. 3. ISSN 1805-3947.)
Kemmis, S., & Grundy, S. (1997). Educational action research in Australia: Organizations and practice. International action research: A casebook for educational reform, 40-48.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Kemmis,S., & McTaggert, R., (1990). The Action Research Planner. Geelong: Deakin University Press
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J., (2007). Implementing the Four Levels: A Practical Guide for Effective Evaluation of Training Programs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler 
Koch, L. H. (2006). Faculty Learning Communities to promote full inclusion of college and university students on campus and beyond. Rehabilitation Education, 20, 191-200
Latham, J.(2016). Data Collection. Retrieved June. 2016 from http://johnlatham.me/frameworks/research-methods-framework/data-collection/
Lau, K.L., & Chan, D. W. (2001). Identification of Underachievers in Hong Kong: do different methods select different underachievers? Educational Studies, 27(2), 187–200.
Lombardi, A. R., Murray, C., & Gerdes, H. (2011). College faculty and inclusive instruction: Self-reported attitudes and actions pertaining to Universal Design. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(4), 250.
Loveless, T., Parkas, S., & Duffett, A. (2008). High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Lyytinen, H., Ronimus, M., Alanko, A., Poikkeus, A. M., & Taanila, M. (2007). Early identification of dyslexia and the use of computer game-based practice to support reading acquisition. Nordic Psychology, 59(2), 109.
Madaus, J. W., Banerjee, M., McKeown, K., & Gelbar, N. (2011). Online and blended learning: The advantages and the challenges for students with learning disabilities and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17(2), 69-76.
McGuire, J., & Scott, S. (2006). An approach to inclusive college environments: Universal design for instruction. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 21-31.
McGuire, J., Scott, S., & Shaw, S.(2006) Universal Design and Its Applications in Educational Environments. Remedial and Special Education Volume 27, Number 3, May/June 2006, 166–175
McGuire-Schwartz, M. E., & Arndt, J. S. (2007). Transforming universal design for learning in early childhood teacher education from college classroom to early childhood classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 28(2), 127-139
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST, Inc.
Nevin, A., Falkenberg, C. A., Nullman, S., Salazar, L., & Silió, M. C. (2004). Universal Design for Learning and Differentiated Instruction: Resolving Competing Mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and No Child Left Behind. COERC 2004, p.92.
National Reading Panel (NRP). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00¬ 4769). Retrieved from National Institute of Child Health & Human Development website https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/documents/report.pdf
Parker, D. R., Robinson, L. E., & Hannafin, R. D. (2007-2008, Winter). “Blending” technology and effective pedagogy in a core course for preservice teachers. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 61-66
Rao, K., Ok, M.W., & Bryant, B.R. (2014). A review of research on universal design educational models. Remedial and Special Education. 35(3), 153-166. doi: 10.1177/0741932513518980.
Rao, K., Edelen-Smith, P., & Wailehua, C. (2015). Universal design for online courses: Applying principles to pedagogy.  Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning. doi:10.1080/02680513.2014.991300
Roberts, K. D., Park, H. J., Brown, S., & Cook, B. (2011). Universal Design for Instruction in Postsecondary Education: A Systematic Review of Empirically Based Articles. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(1), 5-15.
Rose, D. (2001). Universal Design for Learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(2), Spring 2001
Rose, D.H. & Gravel, J.W. (2010). Universal design for learning. In E. Baker, P. Peterson, & B. McGaw (Eds.). International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd Ed. Oxford: Elsevier./www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines
Rose, D. H., Meyer, A. Strangman, N. & Rappolt, G. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rose, J. (2006) Independent review of the teaching of early reading. Final Report. Department for Education and Skills, UK.
Rothstein, R. (2008). Whose Problem Is Poverty?. Educational Leadership,65(7), 8-13.
Schelly, C. L., Davies, P. L., & Spooner, C. L. (2011). Student Perceptions of Faculty Implementation of Universal Design for Learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(1), 17-30.
Schrand, T. (2008). Tapping into active learning and multiple intelligences with interactive multimedia: A low-threshold classroom approach. College Teaching,56(2), 78-84.
Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. S. (2001). Principles of Universal Design for Instruction. Storrs: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability.
Scott, S., McGuire, J. M., & Embry, P. (2002). Universal design for instruction fact sheet. Storrs: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability.
Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Foley, T. E. (2003). Universal Design for Instruction: A framework for anticipating and responding to disability and other diverse learning needs in the college classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 36, 40-49.
Segal,J., and Smith, M.(2015). ADD/ADHD and School -Helping children with ADHD succeed at school. (July 2015) Retrieved from http://helpguide.org/mental/adhd_add_teaching_strategies.ht
Silver, P., Bourke, A., Strehorn, K.C. (1998). Universal Instructional Design in higher education: An approach for inclusion. Equity and Excellence in Education, 31(2), 47-51. 
Spencer, S. (2011). Universal design for learning: Assistance for teachers in today’s inclusive classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 1, Summer 2011.
Spooner, F., Baker, J. N., Harris, A. A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Browder, D. M. (2007). Effects of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and Special Education, 28(2), 108-116. doi: 10.1177/07419325070280020101
Stanford, B., & Reeves, S. (2009). Making It Happen: Using Differentiated Instruction, Retrofit Framework, and Universal Design for Learning. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 5(6), n6.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407. 
Steere, A., Peck, C., and Kahn, L. (1988). Solving language difficulties. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
Story, M.F., Mueller, J.L., &Mace, R.L.(1998). The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. Raleigh, North Carolina State University. 
Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (Eds.). (2007). Differentiating instruction: Collaborative planning and teaching for universally designed learning. Corwin Press.
Tomlinson, C. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school: One school’s journey. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 77-87. 
Tomlinson, C. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 
Tomlinson, C. (2000). Reconcilable differences? Standards-based teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(4), 6-11. 
Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 
Tomlinson, C., (2003). Fulfilling the Promise of the Differentiated Classroom: Strategies and Tools for Responsive Teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Torgesen, J.K., Rashotte, C.A., Alexander, A. (2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain. (pp. 333-356). Parkton, MD: York Press.
Torgerson, C., Hall, J., and Brooks, G. (2006). A Systematic Review of the Research Literature on the Use of Phonics in the Teaching of Reading and Spelling. Department for Education and Skills, Research Report 711, University of York and University of Sheffield
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006). A content analysis of evaluation findings across 20 gifted programs: A clarion call for enhanced gifted program development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(3), 199–215. doi:10.1177/001698620605000302
Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (2011). The Washington State Dyslexia Resource Guide, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/Reading/pubdocs/DyslexiaResourceGuide.pdf
Wyner, J. S., Bridgeland, J. M., & DiIulio Jr, J. J. (2007). Achievementrap: How America is Failing Millions of High-Achieving Students from Lower-Income Families. Civic Enterprises.
Zhang, Y. (2005). Collaborative professional development model: Focusing on universal design for technology utilization. ERS Spectrum, 23(3), 31-38.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. American Psychological Association.