A Preliminary Study of the Literacy Experiences of Adolescents With Severe Disabilities

Abstract

Seventy-five literacy activities of eight middle and high school students with severe disabilities were analyzed in terms of the literacy content, materials used, student engagement, and contexts, including location and instructional arrangement. Coded observations, review of teaching materials, and follow-up teacher interviews and questionnaires revealed that students spent a disproportionate amount of time passively engaged in reading activities (i.e., listening without the opportunity to respond) in one-to-one instructional arrangements located in self-contained classes. Active engagement in written and spoken expressive communication was underemphasized. Worksheets and picture symbols were the most often-used materials. Activities rarely occurred in the natural setting for use of the literacy skill, or with the materials that would be used under natural circumstances. Findings are discussed in relationship to research-based practices.

Keywords

literacy severe disabilities observation student engagement

Literacy has been widely identified as a curricular priority for students with severe disabilities (Agran, 2011) and has recently been the focus of a growing body of intervention research. For adolescents, perspectives on appropriate literacy content, contexts, and materials are widely divergent, as the relative importance of academic and functional skills is more contested than in earlier grades (Bouck, 2009; Browder, Trela, & Jimenez, 2007; Copeland & Keefe, 2007). Despite increased attention on literacy for students with moderate and severe disabilities in recent years, the impact on practice has not been measured (Copeland, Keefe, Calhoon, Tanner, & Park, 2011). To make recommendations for improving literacy instruction, it is constructive to understand the current state of practice.

Literacy for Students With Severe Disabilities

When designing instruction, four key decisions must be made: (a) What will students learn? (b) Where will students learn? (c) What materials will they use? and (d) How will students demonstrate learning? Each of these decisions is interconnected and must be guided by a conceptual framework (Ruppar, Roberts, & Olson, 2014). In literacy, teachers’ decisions have historically been guided by a narrow focus on sight word instruction, often without reference to a broader communicative purpose (Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006). Research strongly supports that students with severe disabilities can acquire sight words through systematic instruction (Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Spooner, Mims, & Baker, 2009). Recently, researchers and teachers have recognized that literacy should be more comprehensive (Browder et al. 2006). Browder and colleagues thus adopted a broader conceptual framework, focusing on phonemic awareness, phonics and print awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension (National Reading Panel [NRP], 2000). This line of research continues and has been highly influential in the field (e.g., Allor, Champlin, Gifford, & Mathes, 2010; Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade, Gibbs, & Flowers, 2008; Mims, Lee, Browder, Zakas, & Flynn, 2012). Generally utilizing a direct instruction format in one-on-one or small group arrangements, positive reading outcomes have been achieved.

Given that students with severe disabilities often do not access text in conventional ways, even broader definitions of literacy were recommended as research progressed. These changes in conceptualizing literacy led to some researchers adopting a definition that includes reading, writing, listening, and speaking for everyday purposes (Copeland, 2007; Sturm & Clendon, 2004). This definition highlights the centrality of communication and situates literacy in a context. For example, students with severe disabilities are often learning to use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) for everyday conversation. Using AAC requires concurrent expressive and receptive use of symbols to communicate, making reading and writing inseparable from listening and speaking (Sturm & Clendon, 2004) and inexorably links literacy to a communicative purpose.

The principle that content and contexts for instruction are tightly bound has been foundational to curriculum development for students with severe disabilities (Brown, Nietupski, & Hamre-Nietupski, 1976). Inclusive contexts have been found to be beneficial to the development of literacy in students with intellectual disability (Dessemontet, Bless, & Morin, 2012). However, students identified with severe disabilities continue to be educated in segregated contexts (Ryndak et al., 2014). Although many researchers agree that literacy should be taught in inclusive contexts (Copeland & Keefe, 2007; Downing, 2005; Sturm & Clendon, 2004), research on literacy for students with severe disabilities has generally been conducted in self-contained settings (Browder et al., 2006). Research examining the relationship between literacy content, materials, and contexts will contribute to future literacy interventions.

Documentation of Literacy Practices for Students With Severe Disabilities

Despite the growing literature base focused on literacy for students with severe disabilities, there are few studies documenting how students with severe disabilities access literacy instruction. Observational studies of literacy instruction for students with severe disabilities have found that instruction might not reflect recommended practices. In an observational study of the literacy experiences of students with deaf-blindness and multiple disabilities including visual impairments, McKenzie (2009) found that in the seven self-contained classes observed, daily news, reading aloud, following activity schedules, and morning circle were the most common literacy activities. When Koppenhaver and Yoder (1993) observed and coded via videotape the literacy activities of three students, 10 to 14 years of age, with severe speech and physical disabilities, between 47% and 100% of the students’ literacy instruction was devoted to decontextualized activities, such as reading isolated words and sentences, fill-in-the-blank exercises, and spelling practice. Reading comprehension was teacher-directed and consisted mainly of text-based factual responses, rather than student-generated ideas. All of the observed literacy activities occurred in self-contained classes in a one-to-one or small group format. Koppenhaver and Yoder noted that each of these practices have been negatively correlated with positive literacy outcomes among students with and without disabilities.

Ryndak, Morrison, and Sommerstein (1999) specifically observed the relationship between inclusion and literacy development in one student over the course of 7 years. Prior to inclusion, the researchers found that the student’s curriculum was narrowly focused, and reflected few connections between instructional activities and everyday use of literacy. The student was often unwilling to participate in literacy activities and assessments, although in everyday activities the student displayed skills not observed in self-contained settings. When the student was included in general education classes, his or her teachers raised their expectations; decreased emphasis on norm-referenced assessments and, instead, capitalized on routine daily activities for instructional opportunities; and modified general education materials and activities as needed. Following inclusion, the student experienced a marked growth in the area of literacy and, in particular, his or her use of language across multiple contexts.

Of these observational studies, only one (McKenzie, 2009) was conducted in the years since No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002) and Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) required involvement and progress in the general curriculum for students with severe disabilities. Therefore, little information is available about how students with severe disabilities currently access literacy. Given that teaching literacy to adolescents adds complexities relative to inclusion, involvement in the general curriculum, and the perceived need for instruction on functional skills (Copeland & Keefe, 2007), it is important to understand how school-based teams implement literacy instruction for this group.

The purpose of this study was to examine school-based literacy instruction with adolescents who have severe disabilities. Using observational data and artifacts drawn from a larger qualitative study of teachers’ decision-making about literacy for students with severe disabilities (Ruppar, Gaffney, & Dymond, in press), the current analysis focuses on the literacy contexts (i.e., where instruction occurred), topic (i.e., what was taught), materials, and literacy tasks (i.e., how students demonstrated learning) of literacy activities for eight adolescents with severe disabilities.

Method

Participants

Teachers (n = 69) who previously participated in a survey (see Ruppar, Dymond, & Gaffney, 2011) were sent an email invitation with a link to a screening questionnaire, which included information about the district, teachers’ duties (e.g., caseload, setting), years of experience, level taught (i.e., middle school, high school, and 18–21 year olds), and general theoretical orientation toward literacy. Four teachers were purposefully chosen to reflect variation across these variables. The teachers were asked to nominate for observation in the study two students on their caseload with severe disabilities. Students with severe disabilities were defined as students who required intensive, ongoing support to participate in school and community environments (Westling & Fox, 2008). Demographic information about each of the eight nominated students is provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participant Demographic Information.

Student	Primary placement	Age/grade	Disability information
Mike	Self-contained class and school	10th grade	Intellectual and physical disabilities
Michelle	Self-contained class and school	10th grade	Cornelia deLange syndrome
Yusuf	Self-contained class with some community-based instruction	Age 19	Autism and intellectual disability
Davonna	Self-contained class with some community-based instruction	Age 19	Autism and intellectual disability
Luciano	Self-contained class with peer tutors; no access to general education settings observed	6th grade	Intellectual disability and ADHD
Emily	Self-contained class with peer tutors; no access to general education settings observed	6th grade	Intellectual disability
Karlie	Self-contained class with peer tutors; no access to general education settings observed	6th grade	Intellectual disability
Betsy	Self-contained class with peer tutors; no access to general education settings observed	8th grade	Intellectual disability

Note. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

The eight students who participated in this study attended public schools in the suburbs of a major Midwestern city. Karlie, Betsy, Emily, and Luciano attended the same middle school in a suburban neighborhood. Betsy and Karlie were placed in a class for students who were perceived as having the most significant disabilities in the school. Their teacher had 3 years of experience and, in general, attempted to tailor instruction to individual students’ goals and interests. Betsy, a mild mannered and conscientious student, was diagnosed with autism and used a speech-generating device with dynamic displays and 32 locations per screen. Karlie was curious, loved interacting with her teachers, and used some speech, gestures, and pictures to communicate. Emily and Luciano were placed in the class next door, for students whose disabilities were perceived to be relatively less severe. Their teacher had 9 years of experience and had attended many workshops on literacy. Luciano was quiet, friendly, and used speech to communicate yet rarely spoke. Emily also used speech to communicate, although at times it was difficult to understand what she was saying. She loved interacting with her classmates and learning about baby animals.

Yusuf and Davonna were in a transition program located at a large high school in the city’s sprawling exurbs. Although they usually spent their days in a self-contained class, they were occasionally taken in a school bus to various community outings, and they regularly made use of a kitchen, laundry area, and private bathroom located just off their classroom. Their teacher had 8 years of experience and saw literacy as a way for her students to gain information. Davonna and Yusuf were both diagnosed with autism, and at 19 years old, they were the oldest students enrolled in the study. Davonna used speech to communicate, and had completed an academic high school program. Yusuf used speech that was usually unintelligible to those who did not know him well. He was learning how to use a combination of pictures and single-message voice output devices, especially with respect to some behavioral challenges he experienced outside of the classroom environment.

Mike and Michelle attended a special education school, attended by 116 students ages 3 to 21 years with a variety of disabilities. They were served by the school’s “Multi-Needs” program, because of their multiple disabilities and health needs. At 15 years old, they had previously been in the same middle school class and now were in a high school class together. Their current teacher had 16 years of experience and described her teaching as “realistic” given her students’ disabilities. She had also been the teacher of their middle school class, and did not change classrooms when she became the high school teacher for the sake of convenience. The students were expected to stay in this class until they turned 22, for a total of 10 years in the same classroom and with the same teacher. Neither was provided the opportunity to use any type of symbolic communication system outside of the questions they were asked during lessons. Little was shared about their interests or personalities.

Procedures and Analysis

Videotaped observations of literacy activities were the primary data source for this study. Observations were supplemented with photographs of teaching materials, field notes from observations, and interview and questionnaire data to code the components of each literacy activity. In total, 7 hr 58 min of videos of 75 distinct literacy activities were analyzed.

Teachers were asked to identify observation times during which literacy would be addressed. A definition of literacy instruction was not given to teachers. Because teachers’ conceptualizations about literacy directly affect students’ access to instruction, it was important that the researcher did not influence the teachers’ definitions of literacy. Each student was observed and videotaped during school hours on at least three different occasions across 5 months, with observations ranging from approximately 20 to 120 min in length. To video record the literacy activities, a 4-in. video camera (Flip Ultra HD) was mounted on a small tripod. Field notes were collected during each observation to document information not captured on video (e.g., other people present) and transcribed for analysis.

For analysis, a literacy activity was defined as a language-focused instructional activity that included reading, writing, listening, and/or speaking (Erickson & Clendon, 2009; Keefe & Copeland, 2011). Non-examples of literacy activities included activities such as unpacking and eating lunch, putting on a coat, transitioning between activities, or taking a sensory break. Between 1 and 21 distinct literacy activities were documented during each observation. An activity either began when a teacher gave the first direction, or, if the teacher did not give a direction, when the student made the first observable movement to engage in the activity. An activity ended either when the teacher instructed the student to engage in a different activity, materials were put away, or a natural conclusion was reached (e.g., eating a bowl of macaroni and cheese that had been prepared). Literacy activities were between 0 min 5 s and 31 min 16 s in length.

Instances of reading, writing, listening, and speaking were coded for analysis. Reading was defined as constructing meaning from a word, symbol, or text, as evidenced by a verbal or motor response (e.g., touching or speaking a written word when requested by a teacher). Writing was defined as an expressive use of words or symbols to make meaning, such as writing a journal entry. Speaking was defined as an expressive use of verbal language or AAC. Listening, defined as passive or active receptive engagement with verbal language, required consideration of contextual elements such as teacher behavior. Active receptive engagement with language included following a teacher’s direction or pointing to words as they were read. Passive receptive engagement, coded as “attending,” included listening to a book read aloud or listening to a lesson without participating.

To triangulate the data, field notes, photographs of teaching materials, follow-up questionnaires, and in-depth interviews were collected. Field notes contained specific contextual information necessary to complete codes about instructional arrangements and other adults and students present. For example, when other people present during an activity (e.g., peer tutors) were not visible in the video, field notes were used to fill in this information. Photographs of teaching materials gave information about the format of the text and content, and were used in conjunction with each video to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the coding. Follow-up questionnaires and interviews contained specific clarification questions about the instructional activities and materials used. They also served as a member check to verify the observer’s notes and interpretations, and to ensure that the instruction observed was typical.

Each activity was analyzed according to three key categories—activity, context, and materials—which were determined a priori (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). These categories reflected the four key decisions teachers made: (a) What to teach? (b) Where to teach? and (c) What materials to use? Within the categories activity and context, subcategories were also predetermined. In relationship to the category activity, the subcategories were as follows: literacy task (i.e., reading, writing, listening, speaking) and topic of the literacy activity. The subcategory reading was further partitioned to denote vocabulary development, comprehension, phonics or print awareness, phonemic awareness, or fluency (although fluency was never observed). In relationship to the category context, the subcategories were as follows: setting, grouping, and individuals present.

Through deductive coding, each subcategory was partitioned (Miles et al., 2014) with one or more relevant codes, which were explicitly defined (see Table 2). Multiple sources of data were culled to populate the categories with codes. For example, when the code comprehension was applied, the code represented not only observational data suggesting that comprehension might be the goal of the intervention but also teacher interviews, questionnaires, member checks, and analysis of teaching materials, which confirmed that comprehension was indeed germane to the literacy activity. Activities to address credibility were interwoven with the data collection activities. In total, up to 28 different deductive codes were applied in a given activity. The frequency of each code was tallied and analyzed in terms of the number and percentage of activities in which the code was observed. The process of partitioning the categories uncovered overall trends in the ways that the student participants experienced literacy instruction (Miles et al., 2014). Although data were “counted” in this study (Miles et al., 2014), the study was qualitative and the findings should be understood in light of an interpretivist epistemology. Rather than seeking causality, interpretivist research can show patterns and connections (Charmaz, 2006).

Table 2.

Definitions of Activity Codes.

Category	Code	Definition
Task: The literacy skill used	Reading	A verbal or motor response to text
	Writing	Expressive use of visual symbols to make meaning
	Speaking	Expressive use of verbal language or AAC
	Listening	Active or passive receptive engagement with verbal language
Topic: Subject of the activity	See Table 3.
Context: Adults present	Special education teacher	Primarily responsible for students with disabilities
	Aide	Assistant to a teacher for students with disabilities
	Related service provider	Provider of related services under IDEA
	Other school personnel	Not delivering instruction/affiliated with the school
	Community member	Not affiliated with the school
Students Present: Any students in the room	Students with disabilitiesPeer tutors	Other students with disabilities receiving instructionStudents without disabilities who are helping
Grouping: Student arrangement in the activity	One on oneLarge groupSmall groupIndependentMultiple	One instructor and one student
		All students in class participate in the same activity
		Two or more students in the same activity
		Student completes activity without guidance
		More than one grouping is used during an activity
Environment: The domain or building	General education school	School for students with and without disabilities
	Self-contained school	School attended only by students with disabilities
	Community	Off-school grounds (not home or vocational settings)
Subenvironment(s): Rooms/spaces in the environment	Self-contained class	Class where only students with disabilities are taught
Subenvironment(s): Rooms/spaces in the environment	Secluded/confined space	Area where no other people are present
	Other school environments	Area accessed by all students (e.g., hallway, office)

Note. AAC = augmentative and alternative communication; IDEA = Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act.

Credibility

Several steps ensured the credibility of the findings. Teachers were asked to identify the least obtrusive place for the researcher to sit or stand and for camera placement to minimize the impact of the observations on the setting (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005). Data were triangulated from multiple sources, and several forms of member checking ensured the accuracy of interpretations (Brantlinger et al., 2005). The teachers verified the details about the activities that were not readily observable via follow-up questionnaires. Following the final observation, each teacher participated in a stimulated recall interview. During this interview, the teacher and researcher watched one videotaped observation of the teacher’s choosing and paused the video throughout the interview to discuss teaching decisions (Clark & Peterson, 1986). Each activity on the video was discussed in depth, allowing the researcher to verify the details of the activity, context, and materials necessary for analysis.

Findings

In the following paragraphs, the findings are presented according to four literacy decisions: the context of instruction (i.e., features of the setting where literacy was taught), the topic of instruction (i.e., what was taught), the materials, and the literacy task (i.e., what the student did to engage in the activity). Overall, the findings suggest that these students’ literacy experiences in school were focused on comprehension and vocabulary, took place in segregated contexts, utilized teaching materials that did not reflect natural uses, and spent a disproportionate amount of time passively rather than actively engaged in instruction.

Context

Setting

Self-contained classes in general education schools were the most common setting for literacy instruction (n = 66; 88%). These rooms were set up in a traditional classroom style, with students sitting at individual desks facing the front whiteboard. The whiteboard (rarely used for instruction), picture schedules, motivational sayings, and calendars typically seen in elementary classrooms decorated the walls. In the classroom at the special education school (n = 3; 4%), students did not have their own desks, but a few larger tables were used for activities. There were far fewer chairs in this classroom than those in general education schools, because most of the students in the class used wheelchairs. The walls were decorated with pictures and posters usually seen in preschool or kindergarten classrooms, such as Dr. Suess, apples, and characters from popular children’s shows like Dora the Explorer. School environments such as hallways or bathrooms (n = 4; 5%) and a store in the community (n = 2; 3%) were other settings in which literacy activities were observed.

Grouping

A teacher or paraprofessional directed individual students’ literacy engagement most of the time. One-on-one arrangements, in which a single student and a teacher were engaged in an instructional activity, accounted for 79% of literacy activities observed (n = 59). The teacher, paraprofessional, or peer tutor sat next to or directly across from the student and was usually quite engaged with the student, providing directions and conversational interaction. Independent work (n = 8; 11%) instruction in small groups (n = 5; 7%) and instruction in large groups (n = 3; 4%) were observed less often.

Other individuals present

The special education teacher was present during all activities observed (n = 75; 100%) and was the primary instructor for 87% of literacy activities (n = 65). Other adults present included paraprofessionals (n = 26; 35%), related service providers such as speech-language pathologists and occupational therapists (n = 7; 9%), community members (n = 2; 3%), and other school personnel (n = 1; 1%). Other students with disabilities were present during 96% of observations (n = 72). Peer tutors were present during 60% of observations (n = 45). Students without disabilities who were not peer tutors were never present during literacy activities. In the special education school, there were no other students or adults present for two of the three observations. For the third observation, a paraprofessional was present but simply sat alongside one of the students without assisting or interacting with the students or teacher.

Topic

Topic referred to the subject of the activity in which literacy use was observed. Fifteen different categories of topics were observed across the 75 observations (see Table 3). Most often, students’ challenging behavior was the topic of literacy activities (19%, n = 14). For example, Betsy and Karlie listened to their teacher read social stories about managing stressful situations or appropriate social interactions (e.g., asking before touching a teacher’s identification badge). Yusuf’s teachers used picture cues to remind him not to touch elevators in the community. Life skills, such as cooking and shopping, were other common topics (n = 13; 17%). Notably, isolated literacy skills were the topic of 13% (n = 10) activities. For example, Karlie practiced identifying the first letter of words illustrated in line drawings; Emily and Luciano practiced mimicking isolated letter sounds. These activities essentially had no topic beyond the rote literacy skill.

Table 3.

Topic of Literacy Activities.

Topic	Example(s)	Number of activities observed	Percent of activities observed
Challenging behavior	Visual cue “No touching elevators”; social story about appropriate touching	14	19
Life skills	Directions for hygiene; circling food words on a worksheet	13	17
Isolated literacy skills	Arranging pictures by first letter; group choral-response phonics activity	10	13
Social/communication	Note to a favorite teacher; greeting others	6	8
Calendar/date	Tracing the date on a worksheet; putting date in correct order using picture symbols	6	8
Science	Teacher-designed text about gardening; picture book about five senses	6	8
Schedule of activities	Personal hygiene activity schedule; daily schedule	6	8
Fictional story	Click, Clack, Moo: Cows That Type (Cronin, 2000); The Outsiders	5	6
Journal	Dictated narrative about a previous event	2	3
Unknown	Could not be discerned	2	3
Field trip	Social story about upcoming field trip	1	1
Stickers (choice)	Using AAC to choose a sticker	1	1
Teachers/classmates	Identifying pictures of teachers and classmates	1	1
Places (desert, zoo, beach, house)	Classifying pictures according to location on a worksheet	1	1
Living room furniture	Circling pictures of living room furniture on a worksheet	1	1

Note. AAC = augmentative and alternative communication.

Materials

Sixteen different literacy material formats were observed in use during literacy activities. The types and frequency of materials are illustrated in Table 4. The most common types of materials used were picture symbols (n = 14; 19%) and worksheets or workbooks (n = 13; 17%). Picture symbols were most often used when behavior was the topic (n = 13; 93% of behavior activities). Karlie, for example, had picture symbols taped to her desk as cues for appropriate behavior. Worksheets were used most often to teach life skills (n = 5; 50% of life skills activities). For example, Davonna and Luciano practiced circling community words (e.g., grocery store words such as chicken; safety signs such as Do Not Enter) in workbooks. Worksheets were also used for science activities (n = 4; 44% of science activities). For example, Betsy completed a worksheet about the five senses. She used picture symbols to match an item (e.g., rainbow; skunk) to a corresponding sense (e.g., sight; smell).

Table 4.

Materials.

Materials	Number of activities observed	Percent of activities observed
Picture symbols	14	19
Workbook/worksheet	13	17
Book or adapted book	8	11
Computer/iPad program	6	8
VOCA/manual communication board	6	8
File folder activity or similar	5	7
Flashcards	4	5
Pencil/pen	4	5
Letters or message written on board	3	4
Schedule (picture; written)	3	4
Glue stick	2	3
Photos of teachers/classmates	2	3
Written cues	2	3
Lined paper	2	3
Alphabet board	1	1
Sentence strip	1	1
Colored pencils	1	1

Note. VOCA = voice output communication device.

Literacy Task

Literacy tasks were defined as any instance of reading, writing, listening, or speaking by the student. Reading tasks were further described using the five key areas of reading identified by the NRP (2000). Reading was observed during 88% of literacy activities, and was the most common literacy task observed (n = 66). Usually, reading focused on vocabulary development (n = 50; 67%). Discriminating between pictures, matching pictures, identifying a picture after a teacher’s request, or circling a picture or word were commonly observed vocabulary skills taught. For example, at the beginning of the day Yusuf’s teacher presented a variety of photographs of teachers and staff, and asked him to verbally identify the people in photos. Karlie’s teacher created activities that required matching a variety of picture symbols. As Karlie worked, her teacher asked her to name the picture symbols.

Comprehension was targeted during 38 activities (51%). Questioning was the only strategy used to teach comprehension. Students demonstrated comprehension by answering an open-ended question (n = 14; 19%) or a forced-choice question (n = 10; 13%). In an example of a forced-choice question, Michelle and Mike’s teacher read an adapted version of The Outsiders. After the story was read, the teacher showed the students two picture symbols. One showed a leather jacket and represented “Greasers,” a group of characters in the story. The other was an illustration of a tissue box. She first asked Mike, “What was the story about? Was it about a Greaser? Or was it about a tissue box?” Mike made his selection by using eye gaze. The teacher then asked Michelle the same question.

Phonics or print awareness was observed much less often (n = 5; 8%) and phonemic awareness was observed during only two activities (3%). In one noteworthy example of phonemic awareness instruction, a teacher created an activity for students to identify the medial sounds of non-decodable sight words. Individualized Education Program (IEP) reviews and teacher interviews revealed that most students did not demonstrate phonemic awareness or phonics skills. Observations seemed to indicate that most students demonstrated some print awareness (e.g., orienting a book and following text from left to right) but other print awareness skills (e.g., knowledge of words as separate entities) were not always clearly demonstrated across students. Fluency instruction was never observed.

Speaking and AAC use, listening, and writing were often connected during activities. Speaking and AAC use accounted for 41% of activities (n = 31). For example, Mike and Michelle took turns using a single-message voice output communication aid (VOCA) to request “turn the page” after the teacher modeled the task for them. Of the tasks in which speaking or AAC use was required, only seven (23%) were student-generated communicative messages (e.g., Betsy used a high-tech VOCA to make the comment, “I hope I get flowers” with regard to a Best Buddies banquet) accounting for 9% of tasks overall. Writing was observed during the fewest activities (n = 8; 11%). Only one of the four teachers was observed teaching writing. Betsy was observed writing a journal entry about a weekend activity and a letter to a favorite teacher, and Karlie was observed choosing picture symbols to build sentences. Listening accounted for 19% of activities (n = 14). Listening was coded only if the student made an observable movement or verbal response to spoken language. For example, when Yusuf’s teacher asked him to retrieve a pencil, this was coded as listening because Yusuf’s response to the request was observable.

Access tasks were necessary to participate in the activity but were not a focus of instruction. These codes included attending, pointing, and page turning. Attending was the most frequently recorded task (n = 47) occurring during 63% of activities overall. Notably, attending was the only student response recorded during 20% of the literacy activities observed (n = 15). For example, Betsy’s teacher spent a great deal of time reading social stories and other books aloud. While Betsy appeared attentive to the book, no other response was required of her during or immediately after the reading.

Discussion

The findings show a snapshot of the literacy curriculum for eight adolescents with severe disabilities across three different schools in three different districts. These findings reflect only the literacy activities that teachers chose to share with the researcher, and therefore might not be representative of the students’ entire curriculum. In relationship to what was taught, the findings provide preliminary evidence that the day-to-day, school-based literacy activities of these eight adolescents with severe disabilities were narrowly focused, built few literacy skills, and did little to reflect the general curriculum or enhance meaningful, purposeful communication. Literacy tasks primarily focused on reading, but active engagement in the literacy task was often not expected. Related to where teaching occurred, one-on-one instructional arrangements in self-contained classes were predominant, and teaching within natural contexts and student independence were rare. Special education teachers and paraprofessionals were commonly the only adults present during instruction. Other school staff and community members were rarely present during literacy activities, and general education teachers were never present. Similarly, natural literacy materials were rarely observed. Instead, worksheets were the dominant materials used. In summary, activities were usually contrived rather than natural, and the few skills targeted seemed to bear little relevance to the everyday purposes of literacy.

Careful attention to instructional content, or what to teach, has the potential to lead to more appropriate choices about materials, tasks, and instructional settings. A disproportionate amount of time was spent on comprehension and vocabulary activities, and receptive rather than expressive communication. The underemphasis on phonics, phonemic awareness, writing, and speaking indicates that students’ literacy curricula were imbalanced and did not reflect the comprehensive approaches recommended in the literature (Browder, Gibbs, et al., 2009; Copeland & Keefe, 2007; Erickson & Clendon, 2009). This finding reflects previous research by Koppenhaver (1991; cited in Koppenhaver & Yoder, 1993), who found that students with severe disabilities spent twice as much time on reading as on writing, and had two to three times more opportunities to listen as to speak during literacy instruction. Literacy programs that heavily emphasize a few discrete skills are unlikely to result in students’ integration of literacy concepts and skills for everyday purposes. Despite major changes in legislation requiring students’ involvement in the general curriculum (Spooner, Dymond, Smith, & Kennedy, 2006), it seems that the literacy experiences of these students closely resemble those observed by Koppenhaver 20 years ago.

Comprehension was targeted during more than half the activities. In previous studies, students with learning disabilities were engaged in comprehension instruction for a smaller proportion of instructional time; for example, in Swanson and Vaughn (2010), comprehension was targeted during only 26% of instructional time. On one hand, the increased focus on comprehension for the students in this study is encouraging. The ability to understand written and spoken language is foundational to being able to use language in everyday situations. On the other hand, phonics and phonemic awareness, which were rarely observed, are essential to the ability to independently decode and use language in everyday life. Moreover, students rarely generated communication through writing, speaking, or using AAC devices. The use of sounds to create words and words to create phrases is critical to independent communication, especially for students using AAC. This skill allows an AAC user to create novel messages and words, rather than relying on someone else to preprogram a device. Phonics and writing are pivotal to independent self-expression for individuals using AAC, and are indispensible to their literacy development.

It should be noted that the teachers of the students in this study were passionate and committed to literacy. Nevertheless, a rote instructional style was often observed, and comprehension was addressed through literal questioning. This teaching style is consistent with previous research on reading instruction for students with learning disabilities; Klingner, Urbach, Golos, Brownell, and Menon (2010) found that teachers of students with learning disabilities most often used low-level questioning to teach comprehension. In the current study, even when higher-level questioning was engaged (e.g., making predictions), a forced-choice format was used, further limiting students’ options for self-expression.

The topics of literacy were likewise narrow, failing to reflect students’ individual perspectives and interests, and were not embedded in meaningful experiences. Teachers did not provide exposure or engagement in rich literacy and communicative activities (Sturm & Clendon, 2004). Rather than engaging in a coordinated set of activities with a defined scope and sequence, students were most often engaged in strings of disconnected “tasks” that bore little relationship to one another or to the context of the classroom. This finding reflects those of Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Orsati, and Cosier (2011), who found that self-contained education was often context-free and meaningless, and instruction was not connected to an engaging or rich curriculum, or to a grade-appropriate general curriculum. Together, these findings suggest that restrictive contexts might likewise restrict the literacy experiences of students with severe disabilities, severely limiting their potential to gain useful literacy skills while engaged in rich and engaging educational activities.

In the current study, the social process of literacy instruction was observed under natural conditions using an interpretivistic approach (Charmaz, 2006). Consistent with interpretivist research, the researcher—who was a former special educator for students with severe disabilities—was the primary instrument for data collection and analysis. Measures of inter-observer agreement are not applicable because social conditions are always changing (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2011). The findings represent the researcher’s interpretations of the literacy activities, which were verified through extensive data triangulation and member checks.

Recommendations for Practice

Students in this study lacked access to the focused, comprehensive literacy curriculum widely recommended for students with severe disabilities (see Browder et al., 2008; Copeland & Keefe, 2007; Erickson & Clendon, 2009). Based on the findings of this study, it would seem that teachers are struggling to apply research-based practices in literacy for adolescents with severe disabilities. While demonstrating understanding of written text, basic phonics and phonemic awareness skills, and vocabulary development are crucial to literacy, these skills alone do not fully encompass what it means to be literate. Students need to be engaged in activities that have meaning, connect to broader issues in their lives, and create social connections with individuals outside special education classes (Sturm & Clendon, 2004). Activities should serve a purpose for the student as well as the broader school community (Erickson & Clendon, 2009). Literacy skills can be systematically taught using naturalistic methods (Snell, Chen, & Hoover, 2006) and embedded in general education classes (Johnson, McDonnell, Holzwarth, & Hunter, 2004). As Copeland et al. (2011) noted, teacher educators likewise struggle with how to prepare teachers to provide literacy instruction for students with severe disabilities. As research in this area has been rapidly accumulating over the past decade, further knowledge dissemination is needed so that teachers and their students can benefit from practices that have been demonstrated to be effective in promoting positive literacy outcomes.

Recommendations for Research

The limitations of this study suggest areas for future research. First, while this study provides examples of the literacy experiences of adolescents with severe disabilities, the limited sample might have contributed to the lack of variety seen in contexts. Extending observations to a wider variety of contexts would allow for a greater understanding of the relationship between the content and contexts of literacy instruction as experienced by students with severe disabilities. Similarly, a larger, stratified sample would ensure that variations across age and disability characteristics are captured within the data and increase the generalizability of the findings. As the research base focusing on literacy interventions for students with severe disabilities is rapidly expanding, it will continue to be important to observe the short- and long-term consequences of these interventions as they are implemented in schools.

Second, the observations were arranged at the teachers’ discretion. Therefore, the activities observed might not be representative of the students’ complete literacy curriculum. Because the observations were videotaped, some teachers might have been reluctant to invite the researcher to observe literacy activities that occurred in areas outside the special education class. Due to this limitation, time spent in literacy instruction was not considered as a variable, because it was not possible to know the total amount of literacy instruction the students received. Future research should extend observations to all activities in school, because students’ literacy experiences might not be limited to structured instructional activities and often extend beyond “official” times set for reading lessons. With a more complete picture of the current state of practice, future research should focus on (a) the consequences of various instructional arrangements and decisions about literacy for students with severe disabilities, (b) remedies for improving literacy practice as it relates to applying literacy content within natural contexts of use, and (c) the amount of time spent in literacy instruction relative to time necessary for acquisition, generalization, and maintenance.

Conclusion

Literacy instruction for students with severe disabilities is a complex endeavor, due in no small part to the need for constant attention to the relevance of skills to the context of use. As the research base focusing on literacy instruction for students with severe disabilities is rapidly expanding, it will continue to be important to observe the consequences of these interventions as they are blended with local teaching practices and contexts. Ensuring that all students have access to multi-faceted, communication-rich, and authentic literacy curricula and instruction will depend on effective translation of research into practice in local contexts.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

The contents of this article do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The contents of this article were partially developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, H325D050066 (Project Officer, Michael F. Slade).

References

Agran

(2011). Promoting literacy instruction for people with severe disabilities: Achieving and realizing a literate identity. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 3–4. doi:10.2511/027494811800824561

Allor

J. H.

Champlin

T. M.

Gifford

D. B.

Mathes

P. G.

(2010). Methods for increasing the intensity of reading instruction for students with intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 500–511.

Bouck

E. C.

(2009). No Child Left Behind, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and functional curricula: A conflict of interest? Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 44, 3–13.

Brantlinger

Jimenez

Klingner

Pugach

Richardson

(2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 72, 195–207. doi:10.1177/001440290507100205

Browder

D. M.

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Courtade

Gibbs

S. L.

Flowers

(2008). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an early literacy program for students with significant developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 33–52. doi:10.1177/001440290807500102

Browder

D. M.

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Spooner

Mims

P. J.

Baker

J. N.

(2009). Using time delay to teach literacy to students with severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 343–364. doi:10.1177/001440290907500305

Browder

D. M.

Gibbs

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Courtade

G. R.

Mraz

Flowers

(2009). Literacy for students with severe developmental disabilities: What should we teach and what should we hope to achieve? Remedial and Special Education, 30, 269–282.

Browder

D. M.

Trela

Jimenez

(2007). Training teachers to follow a task analysis to engage middle school students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities in grade-appropriate literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 206–219. doi:10.1177/10883576070220040301

Browder

D. M.

Wakeman

S. Y.

Spooner

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Algozzine

(2006). Research on reading instruction for students with severe cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392–408. doi:10.1177/10883576070220040301

10.

Brown

Nietupski

Hamre-Nietupski

(1976). The criterion of ultimate functioning and public school services for severely handicapped students. In Thomas

M. A.

(Ed.), Hey, don’t forget about me!: Education’s investment in the severely, profoundly, and multiply handicapped (pp. 2–15). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

11.

Causton-Theoharis

Theoharis

Orsati

Cosier

(2011). Does self-contained special education deliver on its promises? A critical inquiry into research and practice. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24, 61–78.

12.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

13.

Clark

C. M.

Peterson

P. L.

(1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In Wittrock

M. C.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York, NY: Macmillan.

14.

Copeland

S. R.

(2007). The power of literacy. In Copeland

S. R.

Keefe

E. B.

(Eds.), Effective literacy instruction for students with moderate or severe disabilities (pp. 1–6). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

15.

Copeland

S. R.

Keefe

E. B.

(2007). Literacy for life. In Copeland

S. R.

Keefe

E. B.

(Eds.), Effective literacy instruction for students with moderate or severe disabilities (pp. 157–165). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

16.

Copeland

S. R.

Keefe

E. B.

Calhoon

A. J.

Tanner

Park

(2011). Preparing teachers to provide literacy instruction to all students: Faculty experiences and perceptions. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 126–141. doi:10.2511/027494811800824499

17.

Cronin

(2000). Click, clack, moo: Cows that type. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

18.

Croninger

R. G.

Valli

(2009). “Where is the action?” Challenges to studying the teaching of reading in elementary classrooms. Educational Researcher, 38, 100–108. doi:10.3102/0013189X09333206

19.

Dessemontet

R. S.

Bless

Morin

(2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic achievement and adaptive behavior of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 579–587.

20.

DeWalt

K. M.

DeWalt

B. R.

(2011). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: AltaMira.

21.

Downing

J. E.

(2005). Teaching literacy to students with severe disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

22.

Dymond

S. K.

Neeper

L. S.

Fones

(2010). Typing with purpose: Linking the word processing curriculum to real world applications through service learning. The Clearing House, 83, 33–38. doi:10.1080/00098650903505480

23.

Erickson

K. A.

Clendon

S. A.

(2009). Addressing the literacy demands of the curriculum for beginning readers and writers. In Soto

Zangari

(Eds.), Practically speaking: Language, literacy, and academic development for students with AAC needs (pp. 195–215). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

24.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004) (reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1990).

25.

Johnson

J. W.

McDonnell

Holzwarth

V. N.

Hunter

(2004). The efficacy of embedded instruction for students with developmental disabilities enrolled in general education classes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 214–227. doi:10.1177/10983007040060040301

26.

Keefe

E. B.

Copeland

S. R.

(2011). What is literacy? The power of a definition. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 92–99. doi:10.2511/027494811800824507

27.

Klingner

J. K.

Urbach

Golos

Brownell

Menon

(2010). Teaching reading in the 21st century: A glimpse at how special education teachers promote reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 59–74.

28.

Koppenhaver

D. A.

Yoder

D. E.

(1993). Classroom literacy instruction for children with severe speech and physical impairments (SSPI): What it is and what it might be. Topics in Language Disorders, 13, 1–15. doi:10.1097/00011363-199302000-00003

29.

McKenzie

A. R.

(2009). Emergent literacy supports for students who are deaf-blind or have visual and multiple impairments: A multiple-case study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103, 291–302.

30.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

31.

Mims

Lee

Browder

D. M.

Zakas

T. L.

Flynn

(2012). Effects of a treatment package to facilitate English/language arts learning for middle school students with moderate to severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 414–425.

32.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

33.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

34.

Ruppar

A. L.

Dymond

S. K.

Gaffney

J. S.

(2011). Teachers’ perspectives on literacy instruction for students with severe disabilities who use augmentative and alternative communication. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 100–111. doi:10.2511/027494811800824435

35.

Ruppar

A. L.

Gaffney

J. S.

Dymond

S. K.

(in press). Influences on teachers’ decisions about literacy for secondary students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children.

36.

Ruppar

A. L.

Roberts

C. A.

Olson

A. J.

(2014). Faculty perceptions of expertise among teachers of students with severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0888406414552331

37.

Ryndak

D. L.

Morrison

A. P.

Sommerstein

(1999). Literacy before and after inclusion in general education settings: A case study. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 5–22. doi:10.2511/rpsd.24.1.5

38.

Ryndak

D. L.

Taub

Jorgensen

Gonsier-Gerdin

Ruppar

A. L.

Arndt

. . .Allcock

(2014). Policy and the impact on placement, involvement, and progress in general education: Critical issues that require rectification. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39, 65–74. doi:10.1177/1540796914533942

39.

Snell

M. E.

Chen

L. Y.

Hoover

(2006). Teaching augmentative and alternative communication to students with severe disabilities: A review of intervention research, 1997-2003. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 203–214.

40.

Spooner

Dymond

S. K.

Smith

Kennedy

(2006). What we know and need to know about accessing the general curriculum for students with severe cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 277–283.

41.

Sturm

J. M.

Clendon

S. A.

(2004). Augmentative and alternative communication, language, and literacy: Fostering the relationship. Topics in Language Disorders, 24, 76–91. doi:10.1097/00011363-200401000-00008

42.

Swanson

E. A.

Vaughn

(2010). An observation study of reading instruction provided to elementary students with learning disabilities in the resource room. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 481–492. doi:10.1002/pits.20484

43.

Westling

D. L.

Fox

(2008). Teaching students with severe disabilities (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.