EPSE 580

Teaching Reading to Students with Special Needs:A Review of Research and Resources

Dana Walt 94141827August, 2013

Teaching Reading

Over the mid to late twentieth century, a debate raged among teachers of early literacy over

phonics, whole-word instruction and whole-language instruction. Phonics instruction emphasizes the

relationship between graphemes and phonemes (i.e., printed letters and their associated sounds).

Whole-word instruction is based on students first acquiring a vocabulary of sight words, and then

learning additional words, most often in context. Whole language instruction, most prevalent during the

1980s and early 1990s, emphasizes meaning. One end of the spectrum reading was viewed as an

accumulation of sub-skills which a learner acquired sequentially, on the other end it was viewed as a

naturally occurring ability developed by repeated exposure to meaningful print materials (personal

communication from B. Fossett, November 3, 2012). Much of the debate had more to do with political

or philosophical beliefs about teaching than with the scientific research base (Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti,

Pesetsky, & Seidenberg, 2001).

In an effort to inform and resolve the debate, several reports were issued in the late 1990s and

early 2000s. Together, they provided converging evidence that learning to read is influenced by the

development of foundational literacy skills. In 1998, the research arm of the U.S. National Academy of

Sciences issued Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Snow et

al. concluded that adequate initial reading instruction requires that children be provided with frequent

and intensive opportunities to read. In addition, they need to use reading to obtain meaning from print,

they need to learn about spelling-sound relationships and our alphabetic writing system, and they need

to understand the structure of spoken words. Adequate progress beyond the initial level requires that

children need to have a working understanding of how sounds are represented alphabetically. They also

need practice to achieve fluency, they need background knowledge to construct meaning, and they

need to monitor comprehension and repair misunderstandings and maintain interest and motivation to

1

read for a variety of purposes. Snow et al. made a number of recommendations about educational

practice and policy to address these needs both in classrooms and in teacher preparation programs.

In 1997, the United States Congress directed the Director of the National Institute of Child Health

and Human Development (NICHD), in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to appoint a National

Reading Panel (NRP) to assess the status of research-based knowledge and the effectiveness of

interventions for young children at risk of difficulties learning to read. Their report, issued in 2000,

concluded that the empirical evidence supported the importance of instruction in phonological

awareness and phonics for the beginning stages of reading instruction. They identified five broad

instructional areas of focus to be taught explicitly and systematically: phonemic awareness, phonics,

comprehension, vocabulary and fluency. These foundational skills are now commonly viewed as the

cornerstones of effective literacy programs. NICHD (2000) also recommended that these skills should be

taught using principles of effective instruction; that is, combining direct instruction with numerous

opportunities to apply them in the context of meaningful and motivating reading and writing activities.

In 2009, the National Institute for Literacy released the Report of the National Early Literacy Panel

(NELP). It had conducted a review of the research on emergent literacy on children from birth to age 5.

According to Erickson, they found that code-related literacy interventions focusing on building

phonological awareness, alphabetic knowledge and shared book experiences that promote interactions

and engagement have a direct, positive impact upon the later development of conventional reading and

writing skills (Erickson, 2010).

In 2013 the debate has largely been resolved. We now know that literacy is not linked to being a

particular age or having a particular level of cognitive ability; rather, it is influenced by exposure to

foundational, emergent literacy experiences. Good readers are able to recognize letters and letter

sequences quickly (i.e., orthographic processing). They recognize sound patterns, manipulate sounds

2

easily, and connect sounds to letters (i.e., phonological processing). They are know the meaning of the

words they read; or, if they do not, they use their world knowledge to help figure them out (i.e., context

processing). Lastly, they are able use all of these skills to construct meaning from text (i.e., meaning

processing) (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013).

Literacy teachers need to be cognizant of a range of effective instructional strategies to teach

these skills in an explicit, systematic way. Further, students need to be led to discover the information or

strategies that they need, rather than simply being told what to do (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001). In

order to be successful in learning to read,

… students must be actively involved in constructing their understandings of print, language, and

the connections between the two by interacting with more literate others across multiple

contexts and for multiple purposes. (Erickson, Hatch, & Clendon, 2010, p. 5)

3

Teaching Reading to Students with Severe Developmental Disabilities

In decades past, it was believed that people need to learn to speak before they can learn to read

and write (Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, & Seidenberg, 2001). It was common practice to wait

until students were “ready”, (i.e., had certain prerequisite skills) before beginning reading instruction

(Browder, Gibbs, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade, & Mraz, 2009; Mirenda, 2003). Frequently, students with

severe disabilities never acquired those skills and never had a chance to begin. This practice effectively

served to highlight students’ disabilities and emphasize their differences from their typically developing

peers (Ryndak, Morrison, & Sommerstein, 1999). A medical model dominated the education and

treatment of persons with developmental disabilities in which educators tried to cure the disability or

help the individual reach optimal functioning (Erickson, 2005).

When literacy instruction did occur, it focussed on teaching students to read sight words that

might be needed in daily living (i.e., functional reading). To a certain degree, learning sight word skills is

important as they form the foundation upon which other more complex skills can be built (Mirenda,

2003). However, teaching sight words alone does not help most children learn how to read. There are

two significant limitations. First, being able to recognize sight words does not always signify that the

student understands what the words mean or can use them in context. Second, an important reading

skill is being able to decode new or unfamiliar words. Word-identification skills alone have no

relationship with conventional word reading skills (Erickson, Hatch, & Clendon, 2010; Browder, Ahlgrim-

Delzell, Courtade, Gibbs, & Flowers, 2006).

In 2006, Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Algozzine conducted a meta-analysis

to determine the degree to which students with severe developmental disabilities were taught the five

essential reading skills that NICHD (2000) identified (i.e., phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary,

4

fluency, comprehension). Of the 128 studies they looked at, nearly all addressed word or picture

vocabulary. Only a few addressed comprehension and fewer still were aimed at teaching phonics or

phonemic awareness.

In many instances, very little time either at home or at school is spent on early literacy instruction

for students with severe disabilities. Marvin and Mirenda (1993) gave parents of preschool children both

with and without delays a questionnaire about the home literacy environment. They found that early

home literacy experiences of children with delays were less supportive and less stimulating than the

experiences of typical children. Fitzgerald, Roberts, Pierce, and Schuele (1995) also found that children

with disabilities began school with less than half the exposure to print than typically developing children.

Goin, et al. (2004) also noted that relatively low priority was placed on reading and writing goals for

students with severe disabilities at preschool, and that teacher had low expectations with respect to

reported students’ participation in reading activities. Al Otaiba & Hosp (2004) found that parents of

students with Downs syndrome reported that their children received no more than 2 hours of reading

instruction per week at school. Children with severe developmental disabilities have less access to

reading and writing materials than their typical peers at school (Koppenhaver & Yoder, 1993; Mirenda,

2003.) Light and Kent-Walsh (2003) found that adult partners of students with disabilities do not

naturally provide opportunities for children to develop their skills within story-reading interactions.

Adults typically dominate the interactions and provide few opportunities for children to take

communicative turns. They tend to emphasize the mechanical aspects of book reading (e.g., page

turning) rather than the meaning of the texts. Erickson (2005) noted that when students experience a

lack of access to literacy learning activities they do not build self-confidence with respect to literacy.

Students with severe developmental disabilities may have a variety of cognitive and/or physical

challenges that make learning to read particularly difficult. They may have vision or hearing impairments

that limit their ability to see written text and/or hear spoken language. They may have processing

5

impairments that limit their understanding of receptive language. They may have difficulty with

articulation or producing speech that interferes with their ability to sound out words, give oral

responses or develop phonological awareness skills. They may struggle with proper grammar and

sentence structure. They may have physical impairments which make it difficult to hold a book, turn a

page, or produce written work.

As with all beginning readers, when students struggle to decode text and understand basic

vocabulary they are left with less brain capacity for comprehension (i.e., constructing meaning from the

text they are reading). Compounding this, students with severe developmental disabilities may have

challenges with working memory that affect their ability to pay attention and retain verbal information.

They may have deficits in executive functions that affect general comprehension, categorization,

planning and decision making. Also, they may have less world knowledge to contextualize what they are

reading (Light & McNaughton, 2009).

With few opportunities to participate in literacy learning in early years, students are less likely to

develop an interest in reading or self-confidence trying. For all students, early literacy learning takes

time, requires perseverance and does not always yield immediate results. For students with intellectual

disabilities, instruction needs to be more explicit and will very likely take longer. Sometimes the books

and reading materials available to support early literacy learning do not have age-appropriate content

for older students and, therefore, may be perceived by them as uninteresting or irrelevant.

Many teachers were and still are resistant to teaching children with severe disabilities to read.

This could emanate from assumptions that students’ deficits effectively preclude reading instruction

(Browder et al., 2009). Teachers may persist in a mistaken belief that people need to learn to speak

before they can learn to read. Teachers may believe there is a critical age for literacy learning and once

students are past that age literacy development is not possible (personal communication from B.

6

Fossett, November 3, 2012). There are many demands on teacher time. With few models of successful

readers apparent, teachers may conclude that spending time and energy teaching students with severe

disabilities to read is at best, inefficient; and at worst, pointless.

Teachers with little or no special education training may feel ill-equipped and unprepared to

effectively support students with severe disabilities. Few effective, evidence-based instructional

resources have been available to meet the needs of individuals with severe disabilities (Light &

McNaughton, 2009). Further, some students may need continued instruction in phonics and phonemic

awareness until well into their middle or secondary grades because of their developmental delay.

However, teachers of older students may have no knowledge of best practices in teaching early literacy

because many university teacher preparation programs (particularly, middle and secondary programs)

provide little or no instruction on this topic, presumably assuming that all students will already be able

to read at grade level.

When students’ immense challenges are compounded by teachers’ low expectations and cursory

or otherwise ineffective teaching practices, the effects are significant and pervasive. A context for

student failure is created. The cycle is perpetuated.

Literacy is important for all peoples’ quality of life. It positively affects people’s social relationships

and is an essential component for effective functioning in societies such as ours where so much is

communicated in writing. Persons with disabilities who are literate are more successful in face-to-face

communications with others and are more readily accepted by their peers (Erickson, 2005). People with

low levels of literacy have fewer employment opportunities (Erickson, 2005) and fewer options for their

leisure time. Increased literacy results in higher perceptions of competence from others (Erickson,

Koppenhaver & Yoder, 1994). Low levels of literacy can have an adverse impact on peoples’ health as it

affects their ability to communicate with physicians and other healthcare providers (Erickson, 2005;

7

Schillinger, Piette, & Grumbach, 2003). For people with complex communication challenges, literacy

skills provide access to computer-speech generating devices and manual systems such as alphabet

boards. Literacy also offers access to the internet to bypass communication challenges in face-to-face

conversations, enhance education, and expand employment opportunities (Light & Kent-Walsh, 2003).

Literacy skills provide greater options for independent living (Light & Kent-Walsh, 2003). Overall, literacy

allows people a greater range of personal expression, enjoyment, and self-directed life choices. Being

able to read can have a profound effect on the self-esteem and quality of life of individuals with special

needs.

In recent years, our cultural expectations of the competence of students with disabilities have

been increasing. This is being driven, in part, by a cultural shift in our beliefs about the potential of

people with disabilities and by the adoption of person-centred empowerment models of support that

accommodate individual differences (Erickson, Koppenhaver, & Yoder, 1994).

Increased demands for literacy are also being driven by the increasing demands of our

technological society as the internet becomes more accessible through a variety of devices for a wide

range of purposes. Technology is providing us all with ever-greater options for communication and

interpersonal interactions, but it requires basic literacy skills in order to access any of it.

American education policy and legislation are also having an effect on our expectations for all

students: schools in the U.S. are increasingly being held accountable for the achievement of all students,

including those with developmental disabilities, with respect to state standards in academic content

(Browder et al., 2009). Educators in Canada, although significantly less focussed on standardized

assessments and fear of litigation, are generally following suit.

8

Fortunately, research is providing guidance for broader approaches to teaching students with

severe developmental difficulties how to read. Hedrick, Katims, and Carr (1999) reported that students

participating in a comprehensive reading intervention made significant gains across multiple measures.

Students received 3 hours of literacy instruction per day with 45 minutes devoted to each of the

essential skill areas. After a full year students demonstrated significant gains on both informal and

formal standardized assessments.

Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, and Mehta (1998) produced clear evidence that more

phonemically explicit and systematic instruction was particularly beneficial for the students who entered

the study weakest in phonological and print-related knowledge and skill.

Fallon, Light, McNaughton, Drager, and Hammer (2004) asked if direct instruction designed to

teach single-word reading would improve the performance of individuals with severe speech

impairments. The five students who participated in the program learned to decode approximately 35 to

45 words (i.e., approximately 80% of the targeted words) over a range of 10 to 34 instructional sessions.

The instructional program incorporated empirically validated instructional practices, such as actively

engaging students in instructional tasks, scaffolding instructional tasks to promote errorless learning,

and using a direct, explicit instructional approach.

Al Otaiba and Hosp (2004) found that implementing a comprehensive literacy tutoring program

based on NICHD (2000) guidelines was effective for many students with Down syndrome. Every student

in their study showed growth in reading skills although not every student showed growth in the same

skills. They noted that students may need extensive practice to become automatic and fluent readers.

Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Flowers, and Baker (2012) found that a multicomponent early literacy

curriculum that included phonics and phonemic awareness resulted in significantly higher literacy

scores. Phonics skills appeared to contribute most.

9

These studies are only part of a growing body of converging scientific evidence that proves that

students with severe developmental disabilities can learn to read and write after intervention with

comprehensive, researched-based reading programs. We now know that many students with disabilities

or who are otherwise at risk can learn to read if their instruction is grounded in the scientific evidence

about how reading develops.

We also know that because of their weaknesses in the area of phonological processing and

delayed development of phonemic awareness, students with developmental disabilities require

systemic instruction in the basics of early literacy to help them learn how to decode print (Foorman &

Torgesen, 2001). Instruction must be more explicit, more comprehensive, more intensive, and more

supportive, for longer than for typically developing students.

As educators now view literacy as a blend of reading, writing, listening and speaking, we develop

broad-based literacy programs that build students’ oral language skills. We realize that although learning

to read requires competence in language, it does not necessarily require ability in speech. Advances in

Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) systems and technology have created options that

were not previously available for disabled students with communication challenges.

Because we now know that literacy develops as a function of experience, we understand the

importance of frequent, early exposure to fiction and non-fiction texts. We now know that sight word

reading alone does not constitute a good literacy program.

Also, our outlook on special education has moved towards a more person-centred perspective

where can facilitate the literacy experiences of people with disability in a variety of ways, dependent

upon the nature of their abilities.

10

Neurobiological Considerations

Over the past decade there have also been new findings in neuroscience using functional

magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) techniques to identify brain activity during different tasks. Scans

show that illiterate people have lower brain activation in brain areas normally associated with reading,

and a thinner band of callosal connective fibres between parietal lobes (Shaywitz & Shawitz, 2004).

Recent studies with people with dyslexia indicate that the provision of comprehensive, evidence-based

reading programs is associated with normalization of brain activity (Shaywitz & Shawitz, 2004). Students

in these studies ranged from 7 to 17 years of age, indicating that changes in brain activity are not limited

to younger children and that the brain remains plastic into adulthood, although the intervention for

older students required significant effort and resources. Further research is needed to see if the same

long-lasting effects can be fostered in children with severe developmental disabilities.

The Importance of Oral Language Skills

Experts now believe that early literacy development is not a final product of oral language

development, but, rather, that development of oral and written language is interrelated and reciprocal

(Kaderavek & Rabidoux, 2004). Reading and writing are integrally connected to listening and speaking,

and the acquisition of literacy skills is founded on the oral language skills that typically develop early in

life. Therefore, teachers, parents and care-givers need to provide an array of experiences for children to

foster both oral and written communication from an early age (such as storybook read-alouds or oral

storytelling together with drawing or scribbling.) Teachers need to create talk-friendly classrooms to

provide students with a variety of communication opportunities for both intellectual and social purposes

that are meaningful and appropriate. Students will benefit from being read to, and being provided with

opportunities to communicate about what they are reading (Fossett, Smith, & Mirenda, 2003).

11

Assistive Technology and Picture Supported Text

Programs that provide picture supported text such as BoardMaker (Mayer-Johnson Co.) and

PixWriter V.3 (Slater Software) allow individuals to type or import text and automatically produce a line

of picture symbols associated with each word. There is some evidence that the use of graphic symbols

may facilitate awareness of the directionality of print and that print carries meaning, which are

important developments in this stage of emergent literacy (Light & Kent-Walsh, 2003). Further, the

provision of an AAC to students with communication needs can result in increased turn-taking and

improved participation during story reading interactions (Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade, Gibbs, &

Flowers, 2006).

However, other research suggests that the symbols potentially make it more difficult for a student

to develop reading and writing skills (Erickson, Hatch, & Clenden, 2010). Most AAC systems use semantic

mapping (i.e., word meaning) and are not true language systems. Pairing picture symbols with words

may cause confusion, particularly when words have more than one meaning or serve a grammatical

function instead of carrying meaning. If the goal is to develop reading skills, pairing pictures with text

might slow the rate at which students develop those skills (Erickson, Hatch, & Clenden, 2010).

An overriding concern should be whether or not the individual understands the meaning of

vocabulary being used and the symbols used to represent those ideas. Beukelman and Mirenda (2012)

say:

“The provision of assistive technology simply shifts the comprehension demands

from the visual graphic modality of written text to the auditory modality of spoken text.

The challenges of vocabulary knowledge, world knowledge, and comprehension

monitoring remain, regardless of the modality of presentation. Depending on the

individual, this shift in modality may or may not facilitate comprehension and learning.

12

Thus, it is important to ensure that assistive technologies and electronic texts are

designed and implemented in ways that minimize the processing demands and maximize

motivation and learning for the student.” (p. 349)

Increasing Instructional Intensity

Students with developmental disabilities will need more explicit and comprehensive instruction

than for typically developing students, which logically implies that more instructional time will be

required. Students with developmental disabilities may read more slowly and require more repetition.

This can be accomplished by providing more classroom instructional time, and/or by providing

additional instruction individually or in small groups (e.g., no more than 3 or 4 students of similar

abilities). There are other options also, such as peer tutoring programs. Teachers need to be flexible and

creative.

Addressing Student Motivation

Student motivation will be affected by their engagement in the activity and their perceived self-

efficacy (Afflerbach, Cho, Kim, Crassas, & Doyle, 2013). Teachers’ attitudes can have a significant effect

on both. For young children, storybook read-alouds can be highly engaging. Teachers can make reading

activities interesting for older children by incorporating variety and by allowing students to select

materials that are of interest to them. Teachers can make the connection to students’ personal goals

explicit (e.g., being able to learn about topics of interest, being able to use the computer, etc.) Above all,

teachers should be positive and encouraging.

Parents should be made aware that research with young children has shown that children with a

rich home literacy environment developed by listening to stories and poems can promote an interest in

reading and development of reading-related abilities (Burgess, Hecht, & Lonigan, 2002).

13

In general, success is the best motivator. If teachers use effective teaching methods and support

students well so they make progress towards becoming independent readers, the student’s success will

be inherently motivating.

Using computer-based instructional programs

There is a proliferation of software available for teaching reading. Research has shown that, for

children with autism in particular, students tend to spend more time on task doing computer based

learning compared with standard book experiences. It is thought that focusing on a computer screen

provides fewer distractions, is more predictable and is visually reinforcing. Other advantages are that

sensory conditions can be individualized to accommodate sensitivities with respect to volume,

brightness, etc., and that the student can control the pace of the lessons. (Williams, Wright, Callaghan, &

Couhlan, 2002). For children with physical challenges, adaptive technology can be used to support

computer use (e.g., switches, keyboard overlays, touch screens).

Romancyzk et al. (1992) found that students who had a preference for computers tended to

perform better with teacher assistance and support than when alone. No single computer program can

be a perfect substitute for effective instruction from a live teacher, and students are not meant to be left

to progress though activities unsupervised.

Adaptations for Students with Severe Developmental Disabilities

Browder et al. (2009) propose a comprehensive model for delivery of instruction that

incorporates what we know about effective literacy instruction in general, with suggested adaptations

and modifications for students with severe developmental disabilities. They do not endorse a particular

reading package or program either; rather, they describe a broad based approach to teaching literacy

over a student’s school-age years.

14

Browder et al. (2009) say that students need to be provided with many opportunities to access

literature through their school years. For emergent readers, this means read-alouds or shared reading

with high-quality fiction and non-fiction texts. Students need opportunities to discuss and actively

engage with the vocabulary and themes after reading. For older students, it might mean teaching them

how to use technology to access texts. Most importantly, the authors stress the importance making

good literature central to reading instruction at all grades. Younger children watch and listen while an

adult instructor reads. Older students have their own copies of the book and follow along with the

reader. Middle school students who cannot read independently can choose their own books, and

perhaps even choose who they wish to read to them.

There needs to be sufficient time dedicated to literacy

instruction throughout the day. Literacy instruction can

include classroom activities, small group pull-out sessions as

well as time spent with books at home.

Browder et al. (2009) also advise that books need to be

carefully selected or adapted to the literacy stage of the

student. The most suitable books for read-alouds and shared

reading will be at the student’s instructional reading level

(i.e., the level he or she can read with 90 - 95% accuracy and

satisfactory fluency) with comparatively complex vocabulary

and sentence structure. Themes and topics should add to

students’ real-world knowledge. Students should never be

asked to independently read texts that are difficult or

frustrating. Importantly, the books and topics must be

interesting and motivating for the student.

15

Effective Read-AloudsTeachers of young children know that

read-alouds (or shared reading) provide numerous benefits. Read-alouds support oral language development. They motivate students to read by helping them see that reading is interesting and fun, they help build students’ knowledge about a particular subject, and they help students develop listening skills. During read-alouds, teachers model fluent reading, word-attack skills and demonstrate the ways in which written language and spoken language differ (Fischer, Flood, Lapp, & Frey, 2004, Pinnell & Jaggar, 2003.)

Training teachers to implement read-alouds effectively is important: Fischer, Flood, Lapp, & Frey (2004) say that effective read-alouds should include books appropriate to the students’ interests, where teachers provide a clear purpose for the reading, model fluent oral reading with animation and expression, stop periodically to pose thoughtful questions, and allow the student to make connections to independent reading and writing.

“To be both age and grade appropriate, literature should be selected and adapted from the

students’ assigned grade level, even though it may not be his or her reading level. Beyond

second grade, most books from the grade-level reading lists should be chapter books with

few or no pictures” (Browder et al., 2009, p. 273).

They go on to say that the types of literature students are provided with should change with the

student's chronological age.

“High emphasis needs to be placed on teaching the student to read in the early elementary years,

with little emphasis on functional reading (that is, learning to read words and signs commonly

used in the context of daily life). In the upper elementary/middle years, students receive about

equal amounts of reading instruction and start to receive assistance with functional reading

activities. By high school, most instructional time is spent on functional activities such as learning

to recognize and apply sight words for daily-living tasks such as preparing a grocery list or

following a schedule.” (Browder et al., 2009, p. 271).

Emergent readers may need direct instruction in print concepts to understand the directionality of

text (i.e., that we read from left to right), holding a book right way up, turning pages, recognizing

pictures etc. Lift the flap books, noise effects, moveable parts and other tactile features help encourage

students to engage with the book and make literacy learning interesting and enjoyable.

Books can be adapted to make them more accessible for students with physical challenges. For

example, if a student has visual impairments they may require enlarged text or Braille. Or, books may be

adapted for students with fine motor challenges by attaching craft sticks or other large tabs to the pages

to facilitate independent reading (i.e., “page fluffers”). Board books with stiff pages may be a good

option, especially for younger students.

16

Text awareness can be enhanced by asking students to provide the missing word in a repeated

story line, or by having the student point to each word in the text as it is read. Emergent readers do well

when text is somewhat predictable. If the book doesn’t have repeated story lines, it can be adapted so

that it does. PowerPoint, Clicker 5 and Kurzweil are examples of software which can be used to adapt

books.

Repeated readings have been shown to increase comments and questions, which became more

interpretive after listening to a story (Pappas & Brown, 1987). For students with developmental

disabilities, repeated readings provide predictability and help students develop confidence. After

reading a story several times students might be able to supply a missing word, tell what happens next,

and/or perhaps even read on their own with fluency.

Adaptations for foundation skill areas

Browder et al. (2009) provide suggestions for adaptations or additional support under each of the

foundation skill areas:

Phonological awareness

Phonological Awareness is the ability to hear, identify and manipulate the individual sounds (or

phonemes) in spoken words. It is shown by rhyming, segmenting words into sounds and blending

sounds to form words. Typical students generally develop phonological awareness through preschool

and kindergarten, but students with disabilities may need continued instruction and practice in

phonemic awareness well into their elementary grades or even longer. Individuals who use an AAC

because of complex communication needs have limited access to speech and cannot manipulate the

sound structure of language. However, there is evidence that these individuals can acquire reading skills

with support, given even limited articulatory ability or AAC systems with speech synthesis if they can use

17

alternative response modes (e.g., picture matching) that eliminate the need for oral responses (Light &

Kent-Walsh, 2003).

Phonics

Students with developmental disabilities will need direct instruction in phonics, the mechanics of

language. This is the ability to link letters with sounds and blend these sounds to form words. From here,

the student learns to sound out, or decode, unfamiliar single written words. As recommended by NICHD

(2000), direct instruction in these skills needs to be combined with numerous opportunities to use these

skills in the context of meaningful, shared reading and writing experiences.

Vocabulary

Students need to understand the vocabulary being read. Comprehension of connected text

depends heavily on the students’ oral language abilities. Students need opportunities to engage with the

vocabulary in a meaningful way in order to construct meaning. Unfamiliar words can be paired with

concrete referents (e.g. real objects, miniatures) or images and/or video to facilitate understanding. If

you are reading a book about apples, have an apple ready! If the book is about cars, use a toy car.

Teachers need to match their level of support to the level of world-knowledge of the student.

Fluency

Browder et al. (2009) say that fluency is comprised of accuracy, automaticity and expression (i.e.,

intonation, phrasing, and stress). Fluent readers are able to effortlessly decode text, so they can pay

attention to giving meaning to what they are reading. If students read with good expression they are

likely also able to actively construct meaning as they read. Fluency is developed through modeling and

practice. Repeated readings and encouragement to “make reading sound like talking” help students

achieve this.

18

Comprehension

This refers to the construction of meaning that comes from contextualizing the text being read.

Browder et al. (2009) say that good readers use strategies such as activating background knowledge (or

schema) for a topic, asking questions, making predictions and creating mental images. They monitor

their understanding and recognize when what they are reading doesn’t make sense. The important

aspect is that students be given opportunities to share their understandings with another person instead

of just passively listening to text being read to them. For students with developmental disabilities,

teachers can structure discussions and ask wh questions (i.e. what, when, why, who) immediately after

reading a line in the story, instead of waiting to ask questions at the end. If students are non-verbal they

could respond by selecting from an array of pictures. Depending on their abilities, students might retell

the story using by putting pictures into a correct sequence, compare events or characters using a graphic

organizer, or illustrate a prediction by making a drawing.

Browder et al. (2009) provide a useful model by which reading programs can be designed or the

sufficiency of existing literacy programs can be assessed. The features of this model have been

incorporated into a checklist to assist in comparing existing programs to this model (see Appendix A).

Commercially Available Reading Programs

Although it is clear that no single package or program alone constitutes a good literacy program,

there are an increasing number of good resources available that can become part of a comprehensive

literacy program to help to maximize student learning time and deliver instruction in a systematic way.

Early Literacy Skills Builder (ESLB)

The Early Literacy Skills Builder (ESLB), available from Attainment Company, was developed by

Browder, Gibbs, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade and Lee (2009). It uses systematic, direct instruction of pre-

19

literacy skills for young children ages 5 to 10 in the five components of early literacy as identified by

NICHD (2000), with a strong focus on print and phonemic awareness. ELSB is a multi-year program with

seven distinct levels and ongoing assessments. The package retails for approximately $695 (US). ELSB

Software can be used in conjunction with the print version or as a stand-alone curriculum, retailing for

$129 (US) per station.

Each level of ESLB contains five scripted lessons, student materials and assessments. Instruction is

intended to be provided by special education teachers either one-on-one or in small groups, daily, in 30-

minute sessions. As this program is well-structured and scripted with an instructional DVD included, it is

designed to be delivered with fidelity by a range of instructors. Formal assessments are given upon the

completion of each level so that students can progress at their own pace. Reproducible pages are

included in PDF format to allow for printing and customization with no workbooks or consumables.

ESLB scripted lessons are systematic, based on research on effective procedures for transfer of

stimulus control (Wolery & Gast, 1993) and Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA), a systematic approach for

improving socially important behaviors. ESLB utilizes two methods of instruction; the system of least

prompts and a constant time delay. Prompting is a technique used to maximize learning success by

helping children respond correctly so they receive reinforcement. A prompt could be verbal, physical or

gestural. Instructors use the least intrusive prompt possible and fade them as quickly possible while still

ensuring student success. As the student learns, the teacher delays the prompt for longer periods of

time to give the student time to respond independently (Browder et al., 2007).

ELSB enables students to give non-verbal responses, if required. Guidelines are offered for

promoting active student participation (i.e., subvocal rehearsal, where the instructor models saying the

sounds aloud and encourages the learner to say the sounds in his or her head) and for confirming

20

comprehension. Even if students do not master all levels, this helps them acquire valuable literacy skills

such as listening comprehension, vocabulary and the development of sight words.

In the first part of ELSB, “Building with Sounds and Symbols”, the character “Moe” the frog puppet is

a key character. The stories have carefully controlled text and are designed for repeated readings. In the

second part of the program, “Building with Stories,” students use books that are chosen by teachers to

reflect their age and interests for both independent and shared reading.

There is a strong research base associated with this program. In one study, Browder, Ahlgrim-

Delzell, Courtade, Gibbs, and Flowers (2008) compared ELSB to the Edmark Reading Program, which

uses a sight-word-only approach. Twenty-three students with severe developmental disabilities were

randomly assigned to either the Edmark or ELSB group. The ELSB students had significantly higher scores

on the ELSB pre-and post-test, Nonverbal Literacy Assessment (Phonics Skills and Conventions of

Reading), Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–III (Receptive Vocabulary), and Woodcock Language

Proficiency Battery.

ESLB is appropriate for young, early literacy learners. Advanced reading skills such as developing

fluency and monitoring comprehension are beyond the scope of this curriculum.

Accessible Literacy Learning (ALL)

Janice Light and David McNaughton from Pennsylvania State University and Mayer-Johnson

produced a printed curriculum guide called Accessible Literacy Learning (ALL): Evidence-based Reading

Instruction for Learners with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Down Syndrome and Other Disabilities (2009). It is

specifically designed to meet the needs of many individuals who have difficulty using speech to

communicate. Their purpose is to teach basic reading skills so that students can read and understand

simple books and other texts.

21

ALL comes in seven binders with instructional activities focussing on the following skill areas:

curriculum guide, sound blending, phoneme segmentation, letter-sound correspondence, single word

decoding, sight word recognition and shared reading. The price for the entire package retails for $899

(US). There are no workbooks or other consumables. A software version is currently under production.

A particular strength of this program is that it provides response templates that eliminate the

need for oral responses and yet speed students’ rate of response. The templates enable learners to

respond orally, by manual sign, by selecting a picture symbol with a finger, eye or switch, or by selecting

letters on a word processor or other communication device. For most tasks, four response options are

provided to ensure the learner is not correct by chance alone. Instructors are prompted to encourage

students’ subvocal rehearsal. The curriculum also provides systematic error analysis to allow the

instructor to highlight areas of difficulty.

ALL employs a most-to-least prompting hierarchy that promotes errorless learning, similar to

ESLB. It is systematic, yet it allows for working on multiple literacy skills at the same time to speed the

rate of learning and introduce variety to maintain interest and motivation. As the program is also well-

structured and scripted, it is also able to be delivered with fidelity by a range of instructors. It includes

suggested goals for each skill area that are easily measurable and adaptable for use in IEPs.

The effectiveness of the ALL program has also been validated by published scientific research

(which is ongoing). The instructional techniques described were developed, implemented and evaluated

through a 5-year research grant, funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation

Research of the U.S. Department of Education. Light and McNaughton acknowledge that the research of

NICHD (2000) forms the foundation of the curriculum. Each of the studies referenced used a single-

subject multiple baseline across participants design, and each targeted a different skill. Participants

included a wide range of children and adults with special needs. Although each of the participants

22

demonstrated his or her own unique rate and pattern of learning, all of the participants made

substantial gains as a result of the instruction skill (Light & McNaughton, 2009).

It is noted that to maximize student learning, instruction from the manual should be combined

with a variety of literacy experiences designed to build language, as well as effective writing instruction.

Advanced reading skills such as developing fluency and monitoring comprehension are also beyond the

scope of this curriculum.

Intellitools Reading “Balanced Literacy”

Balanced Literacy is designed for young readers. It was developed by IntelliTools, Inc., under a

grant from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute for Child Health and Development

(USA), and released in 2001. The prototype was created and evaluated during 1998–99 in a single

unpublished study. The package, including print resources and CD can be purchased for $299 (US). This

resource is provided to low incidence students in BC schools by SET-BC, at no cost.

The package includes nine units, each with a hard copy anchor book built around an animal

theme. The included CD provides a series of activities related to each book to be completed on a

computer after a read-aloud or shared reading. It is expected that the nine units would be completed

over an entire year. The software guides users to sign on and tracks their progress, starting where they

left off at each session. Students can go back and redo any past activities, but can only work ahead

sequentially.

There are nine anchor books for guided reading (provided in hard copy and on the CD), and the

binder includes additional printable books including pattern books, onset books, rime books and

decodable books. The package also includes sequential lesson plans for teachers and reproducibles for

seatwork activities.

23

The unit activities for each book are systematic, building on what the exercises that came

before. They focus on phonemic awareness (e.g., onset and rime), phonics (e.g., word chunks and

families), common sight words, writing and comprehension. The program provides multiple

opportunities to read text both on screen and in the anchor books. Vocabulary development is

supported in the context of the stories with visual cues.

The books feature patterns of predictable text and repetition. While there is some variation in

the computer activities, the activity patterns make it easy to understand what is expected as the lessons

progress. For example, multiple activities in each unit provide students with opportunities to hear and

read many words with the same onset or rime. Thirty-two rimes are covered in total.

The CD adds music and audio prompts. The large and colourful graphics are used appropriately

to support the text, and are faded as the student moves through the activities. The program supports

access for students who may have difficulty using a keyboard through touchscreens and or overlays (i.e.,

Intellikeys).

There is an additional feature called “ReadyMade Primary Writing CD”, which contains writing

templates for use with IntellitTalk II, a talking word processor available from the same company. It

provides lesson plans and structured writing activities designed to correlate with the nine reading units.

This resource has many strengths. The anchor books allow for shared reading experiences and

interactions about the text. The teacher’s guide provides lesson plans and blackline masters for live

classroom instruction. Additional book titles are suggested for each unit that relate to the theme of the

anchor book.

The computer activities build on the stories in each book, and include colourful graphics and

music that make the activities interesting, fun, and quite motivating for students. By completing the

units in sequence the student receives systemic instruction on several foundational literacy skills, in

particular, onset-rime activities (i.e., phonemic awareness) and phonics. The repeated lines of text

24

incorporated into the various computer activities build fluency. The activities offer immediate visual and

auditory reinforcement, which is effective for many students with severe disabilities. As the interface

presents the units and lessons sequentially via a login with user name, they can easily be completed by

the student either independently or under supervision of an Education Assistant.

Although the activities connect to many foundation literacy skills, the research that supports this

program is has not been published and, therefore, has not been subject to rigorous scrutiny (Intellitools,

2007). In addition, an operational concern is that students are able to progress from one activity to the

next simply by activating the activity, not as a result of an assessment after completing it. Therefore,

there needs to be fairly close adult supervision to ensure that students don’t blindly click through the

activities without actually completing them.

Although there are some assessment activities and reports incorporated into the software, they

are not connected to widely understood gradients of reading ability and do not equate with an

approximation of student reading levels. It appears that students are able to make three tries for each

question, and after the third incorrect response they are provided with the correct one. If a student

scores low on a unit activity, they are not directed to redo a previous activity; rather, they are able to

move on to the next section.

It would be particularly important to ensure students understand vocabulary in the anchor texts.

Supplementary activities to probe and, if required, develop comprehension might be necessary. It would

also be important to provide opportunities for students to be able to practice to generalizing sight words

and decoding skills to different texts and contexts.

The difficulty level of the anchor books increases quite steeply. If the student needs more

practice at a particular level and/or with a particular skill, the only option is repetition of previous

activities. Further, with only one copy of the anchor book for each unit, this resource is only suitable for

individual, 1 to 1 instruction.

25

However, when incorporated into a more comprehensive literacy program and supervised by a

teacher or an educational assistant, Balanced Literacy could efficiently and effectively be used to

support student practice and review and maximize individual student learning time.

Levelled Literacy Intervention

The Fountas & Pinnell Leveled Literacy Intervention System (LLI) by Irene Fountas and Gay Su

Pinell was published by Heinemann in 2009. It is a small-group, supplementary literacy intervention

designed to help teachers provide daily, small-group guided reading for students reading below grade

level. It is built around the text reading gradient (A–Z) designed by Fountas and Pinell. LLI kits are offered

in four levels for K, Gr. 1, Gr. 2 or Gr. 3 students, each ranging in price from $1600 to $4500 (varying with

the number of levels and books included). Each lesson includes 4-6 copies of each of the fiction and non-

fiction titles (up to 144 books with each kit).

The program provides 14 to 20 weeks of daily, intensive extra reading lessons of 30 minutes

each. The recommended group size is a maximum of three to a maximum of six students. The program is

ideal for support of “Tier 3” students for schools working under a Response to Intervention framework.

The A-Z gradients of the levelled books are widely applied and broadly understood.

The lessons include reading, writing, and phonics activities. They focus on explicit teaching of

sounds, letters, and words in context, but with attention also to word patterns and syntax. The program

also incorporates fluency practice via oral rereading. Comprehension and vocabulary are developed

through conversations before, during and after reading. Assessments and record keeping software is

available.

The books are colourful and interesting, and the format is consistent across titles. These are

high-quality guided reading books that can form a resource cornerstone of any learning support

classroom.

26

Some research and anecdotal reports have been sponsored by the publisher, Heineman, and

another was conducted by the Centre for Research in Education Policy out of the University of Memphis.

However, even though Fountas and Pinnell have published work about literacy and guided reading since

the 1990s, studies focusing on this particular resource have not been published.

See Figure 3 for a comparison of each product.

27

FIGURE 3.Advantages Disadvantages

Early Literacy Skills Builder(ELSB)

Targeted skill instruction in all foundation skills, in particular, print &phonemic awareness

Supports students who are developing emergent literacy skills

Provides scripts to support systematic learning based on ABA

Provides response templates that support non-verbal responses

Themed: Moe the Frog (most appropriate for younger students)

Assessment tools incorporated Strong research base

Books provided for first levels only Does not support higher levels of

literacy learning

Accessible Literacy Learning (ALL)

Targeted skill instruction in all foundation skills, in particular, print & phonemic awareness

Supports students who are developing emergent literacy skills

Provides scripts to support systematic learning based on ABA

Provides response templates that support non-verbal responses

Provides suggested IEP goals Assessment tools incorporated Strong research base

Only provides three books for shared reading

Does not support higher levels of literacy learning

Intellitools Balanced Literacy (Reading)

Targeted skill instruction in all foundation skills, in particular, phonemic awareness and phonics

Computer activities are engaging, with repetition and visual reinforcement

Students can work semi-independently

Additional materials can be printed or copied for classroom instruction

Relatively inexpensive

Steep increase in gradient of difficulty over nine units

Single copy of each anchor book Limited assessment tools Research limited to single

unpublished study on prototype

Levelled Literacy Intervention(LLI)

Together, the four kits provide over 70 original, high-quality levelled book titles

Multiple copies of each title for small-group instruction

Books are levelled according to well-understood gradient for easy comparison to grade level

Targeted skill instruction in all foundation skills

Gradient of difficulty across levels is very smooth

Supports reading levels for students K through intermediate

Assessment tools

Relatively expensive Does not explicitly provide for non-

verbal responses Assumes students have grade level

world knowledge for comprehension Does not explicitly provide

adaptations for students with communication challenges

Research base?

28

Conclusion

The debate of previous decades about what constitutes effective literacy instruction has largely

been resolved. Literacy learning is a function of experience rather than development, influenced by

foundational, emergent literacy skills. Best results come from frequent, interactive exposure to literacy

experiences before age six, but individuals of any age can benefit from direct, systemic literacy

instruction.

Person-centred empowerment models of support include goals across educational, domestic,

recreation, community and vocational domains. Achieving literacy can contribute to achievements in

each of these domains and, therefore, must rise to the top of the priority list. There can be no excuses.

Teachers know what needs to be done; we have the knowledge and tools to accomplish it.

More research is needed about whether effective literacy instruction will lead to greater

independence as a reader for individuals with severe disabilities. We also need to examine the potential

adverse impact of using an AAC system with graphic symbols – do symbols help or hinder literacy

learning? We need to explore the neurobiological consequences of good reading instruction: can

evidence-based reading programs cause a sustained normalization of brain activity in children and adults

with severe developmental disabilities? Do some activities have a greater effect on brain development

than others? Some broader, qualitative questions are also important: does increased literacy result in

improved peer relationships, employment outcomes or decision making? What we discover could

significantly affect the quality of life of people with severe developmental disabilities by facilitating their

involvement across all life domains resulting in greater independence and greater self-determination.

29

Appendix A Checklist for Assessment of Literacy Program for Students with Developmental Disabilities*

Student: ______________________________ Staff: ___________________________ Date: ______________

Highlight or check as appropriate Action required

Increased Access to Literature

Opportunities to Access Literature

Adapted books Provide texts that are clear, meaningful and culturally and linguistically appropriate(E.g., text summaries, picture books, page fluffers)

Time for literacy provided daily

Estimation, in minutes per day and days per week ___________________

Variety of different readers

E.g., teachers, paraprofessionals, volunteers, peers, family, caregivers

Technology to access text

E.g., software (Kurzweil, Photostory, Pictello), hardware (tablet, e-reader, scanner, switch) and/or AAC if required

Instruction to Access Literature

Effective read-alouds and repeated readings

The teacher/reader:- Selects books appropriate to student

interests at students instructional level- Establishes clear purpose for read-aloud- Models expressive, fluent oral reading- Poses questions to enable student to

interact with text and facilitate responses- Helps student make connections and

thereby make meaning(e.g., text to text, to self, to world)

Text awareness- Teacher/reader or student points to each

word as it is readDirect instruction and opportunities provided to:- Identify text structures

(e.g., titles, headings, chapters)- Anticipate turning page- Reference picture cues- Anticipate and fill in a repeated story line

Highlight or check if component is currently included Action required

i

Instruction to Access Literature (con’t)

Listening comprehension Grade-appropriate activities such as:- Sequencing story elements (e.g., pictures)- Identifying author’s point of view- Identifying and discussing themes- Predicting what will happen next- Describing/comparing characters

Increased independence as a reader

Reading instructionPhonemic awareness Direct instruction to:

- Segment words into separate sounds- Identify letter-sound correspondences- Identify and generate words that begin with

a specific first sound, final sound, medial sound

- Identify and generate rhymes- Identify syllables in words

Phonics Direct instruction in:- Concepts of print- Alphabetic awareness- Principles of phonics

Vocabulary Direct instruction to teach key vocabulary (e.g., connect to real objects, actions, picture symbols, images, video)Activities to promote meaning of the text (e.g., eating apples, if book is about apples)

Fluency Develop speed and accuracy through overlearning(e.g., sight word games)

Comprehension Good readers:- Activate background knowledge- Ask and answer “wh” questions- Make predictions- Create mental images- Monitor their own comprehension(e.g., through activities as described above under listening comprehension)

ii

Highlight or check if component is currently included Action requiredOpportunity to Apply/Generalize Reading skills

Text applications E.g.,- Identify specific sounds in song, game, poem- Clap the syllables in words in song, game,

poem- Using sight words across different locations

and situations

Functional activities Generalize sight words to daily living skills(e.g., weather reports, shopping lists, menus)

Writing E.g.,- Selecting pictures, words, or phrases from

an array of options- Drawing a text summary

Notes:

*Adapted from Browder et al. (2009)

iii

References

Afflerbach, P., Cho, B.U., Kim, J.Y., Crassas, M. E., & Doyle, B. (2013). Reading: What else matters besides strategies and skills? The Reading Teacher, 66(6), 440–448.

Al Otaiba, S. & Hosp, M. K. (2004). Providing effective literacy instruction to students with Down syndrome. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(4), 28.

Barnes, A.C., & Harlacher, J.E. (2008) Clearing the confusion: Response-to-intervention as a set of principles. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), 418–431.

Beukelman, D.R., & Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative and alternate communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs, 4th Ed. Baltimore: H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L, Courtade, G.R., Gibbs, S.L., & Flowers, C. (2006). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an early literacy program for students with significant developmental disabilities using group randomized trial research. Exceptional Children, 75(1), 33–52.

Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., & Baker, J. (2012). An evaluation of a multicomponent early literacy program for students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33(4), 239–246.

Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G., Gibbs, S., & Flowers, C. (2012). An evaluation of an early literacy program for students with developmental disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children, 75(1), 33-52.

Browder, D., Gibbs, S., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L, Courtade, G., & Mraz, M. (2009). Literacy for students with severe disabilities: What should we teach and what should we hope to achieve? Remedial and Special Education, 30(5), 269–282.

Browder, D.M., Wakeman, S. Y., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74(4), 392–408.

Burgess, S.R., Hecht, S.A., & Lonigan, C.J. (2002). Relations of the home environment to the development of reading-related abilities: A one-year longitudinal study. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 408–426.

Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. & Browder, D. (U.D.). Early Literacy Skills Builder: Research for students with autism and severe developmental disabilities. Attainment Company. Retrieved from: http://www.attainmentcompany.com/elsb

Erickson, K. (2005). Literacy and persons with developmental disabilities: Why and how? Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2006, Literacy for Life.

Erickson, K., Hatch, P., & Clendon, S. (2010). Literacy, assistive technology and students with significant disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(5), 1–16.

1

Erickson, K.A., Koppenhaver, D.A., & Yoder, D.E. (1994). Adult literacy and AAC users: Research findings and future directions. Proceedings -- International Society for Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 258–259.

Fallon, K., Light, J., McNaughton, D., Drager, K. & Hammer, C. (2004). The effects of direct instruction on the single-word reading skills of children who require augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Journal of Speech Language Hearing Research, 47(6), 1424–1439.

Fisher, D., Flood, J., Lapp, D., & Frey, N. (2004). Interactive read-alouds: Is there a common set of implementation practices? International Reading Association, 58(1), 8–17.

Fitzgerald, J., Roberts, J., Pierce, P., & Schuele, M. (1995). Evaluation of home literacy environment: An illustration with preschool children with Down syndrome. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 11, 311-334.

Foorman, B.R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 203–2012.

Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 37–55.

Fossett, B., Smith, V., & Mirenda, P. (2003) Facilitating oral language and literacy development during general education activities. In D. Ryndak & S. Alper (Eds.), Curriculum and instruction for students with significant disabilities in inclusive settings (pp. 173–205). Boston: Pearson Education.

Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G.S. (2009). Research base for leveled literacy intervention. Retrieved from http://www.heinemann.comfountasandpinnell/research/LLIReasearchBase.pdf.

Goin, R., Nordquist, V.M., & Twardosz, S. (2004). Parental accounts of home-based literacy processes: Contexts for infants and toddlers with developmental delays. Early Education & Development, 15(2), 187-214.

Hedrick, W.B., Katims, D.S. & Carr, N. J. (1999). Implementing a multimethod multilevel literacy program for students with mental retardation. Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities, 14, 231–239.

Intellitools. (2007). The research basis for IntelliTools products. Retrieved from http://www.intellitools.com/files/research/research_feb07.pdf

Kaderavek, J. N., & Rabidoux, P. (2004). Interactive to independent literacy: A model for designing literacy goals for children with atypical communication. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, 237–260.

Koppenhaver, D.A., & Yoder, D.E. (1993) Classroom literacy instruction for children with severe speech and physical impairments: What is and what might be. Topics in Language Disorders, 13(2), 1–15.

Light, J. & Kent-Walsh, J. (2003). Fostering emergent literacy in children who require AAC. The ASHA Leader, May, 2003, 26-28.

2

Light, J. & McNaughton, D. (2009). Accessible literacy learning curriculum guide: evidence based reading instruction for learners with autism, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome and other disabilities. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Mayer-Johnson.

McIntosh, K., MacKay, L.D., Andreou, T., Brown, J.A., Mathews, S., Gietz, C., & Bennett, J. (2011). Response to intervention in Canada: Definitions, the evidence base, and future directions. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26(1), 18–43.

Mirenda, P. (2003). “He’s not really a reader …”: Perspectives on supporting literacy development in individuals with autism. Topics in Language Disorders, 23(4), 271–282.

National Institute for Literacy (NIFL). (2009). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (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: Report of the subgroups. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Pappas C., & Brown, E. (1987). Young children learning story discourse: Three case studies. The Elementary School Journal, 87(4), 455–466.

Rayner, K., Foorman, B.R., Perfetti, C.A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31–68.

Reithaug, D. (2002). Orchestrating success in reading. West Vancouver: Stirling Head Enterprises.

Reithaug, D. (2009). Three tiers of instruction and intervention for reading. West Vancouver: Stirling Head Enterprises.

Ryndak, D.L., Morrison, A.P., & Sommerstein, L. (1999). Literacy prior to and after inclusion in general education settings: A case study. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 5–22.

Schillinger, D., Piette J., & Grumbach, K. (2003). Closing the loop: physician communication with diabetic patients who have low health literacy. Archives of International Medicine, 163(1). 121–125.

Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2004). The new science of reading and its implications for the classroom. Educ Can, 44(1), 20-23.

Snow, C.E., Burns, S.M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children: Executive Summary. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press

Williams, C., Wright, B., Callaghan, G., & Coughlan, B. (1992). Do children with autism learn to read more readily by computer assisted instruction or traditional book methods?: A pilot study. Autism, 6, 71-91.

Wolery, M., & Gast, D.L. (1993). Effective and efficient procedures for the transfer of stimulus control. Topics in Early Childhood Education, 4(3), 52–72.

3