Increasing Participation of Middle School Students with Significant Disabilities in Grade-Appropriate Literacy Lessons

Diane Browder, Ph.D., Katherine Trela,M.S., & Bree Jimenez,M.Ed. 2006

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Focus on Literacy

• National Institute for Literacy (2001) highlighted the need to strengthen reading instruction in schools “so that all Americans can develop the literacy skills they need to succeed at work, at home, and in the community”

Focus on Accountability

• Federal mandates to ensure all students – Access evidence-based instruction in general

education curriculum – Participate in statewide assessments to

measure progress in general education curriculum

(No Child Left Behind, 2001; Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act, 2004)

Components of Effective ReadingInstruction

– Put Reading First, The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read summarizes the research on effective reading instruction in five areas : phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension

(National Institute for Literacy, 2001)

Reading Instruction for Students with Significant Disabilities

• Most research has been on sight word instruction (Browder & Xin, 1998; Al Otaiba & Hosp, 2004)

• Some research has shown positive effects for phonological awareness training (O’Connor, Jenkins,

Leicester, & Slocum, 1993; O’Connor, Jenkins, & Slocum, 1995; O’Connor, Notari-Syverson, & Vadasy, 1996)

• Recent review of literature showed no studies demonstrated a longitudinal approach to reading and all targeted only one or two components of reading. (Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Algrim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006)

Teaching Reading to Students with Significant Disabilities

• Reading intervention needed that: – Includes all components of reading instruction– Uses grade-appropriate literature to access

general curriculum– Promotes acquisition of literacy skills– Assesses acquisition of early literacy skills

Purpose

To examine the effects of training teachers to use a literacy lesson plan based on NRP components of reading and self-monitor literacy instruction

Research Questions

• a) What is the effect of the use of self monitoring and a lesson template in teachers’ use of components of reading to teach grade-appropriate literature to students with significant cognitive disabilities?

• b) What is the effect of teachers’ training in the components of reading following the template on student’s emergent literacy skills?

Design, Participants, & Setting

• Multiple probe across participants• 5 teachers of students with significant disabilities• 10 students:2 students selected by each teacher(2 students with autism, 6 students with severe MR, 2 students with moderate MR)

• 3 Language Arts Teachers • 3 self-contained classrooms in public middle

schools• 2 classrooms in separate school

Materials

• Literacy Lesson Task AnalysisSteps addressed the NRP’s 5 Components of Reading:

• Phonemic Awareness• Phonics• Fluency• Vocabulary• Comprehension

• Student Response Checklist– Observed emergent literacy behaviors (prompted and

independent):• Point to text

Student Response Checklist(cont’d)

– Observed emergent literacy behaviors:• Read repeated story line• Turn page at appropriate time• Respond to literal comprehension questions• Respond to inferential comprehension questions• Make predictions • Identify letters and letter sounds• Blend sounds to make words• Identify meaning of a vocabulary word

I. OPENING: All students.

____1. Attention grabber activity : Sensory stimulation (AVTKGO*)

Description

* Auditory, Visual, Tactile, Kinesthetic, Gustatory (taste), Olfactory

II. WORD STUDY : Words taught in isolation and identified explicitly as target vocabulary.

Target Vocabulary:Time Delay

Student: Response mode:

____2. Teacher says vocabulary word and gives student an opportunity to repeat. (0 delay)____3. Give student opportunity to say or recognize vocabulary word.(Wait #sec for response; may repeat)

Target Sound/sTime Delay

Student: Response mode:

____4. Teacher says letter sound and gives student an opportunity to repeat. (0 delay)____5. Give student opportunity to say or recognize letter sound. (Wait #sec for response;may repeat)III. TEXT AWARENESS____6. Teacher reads title.____ 7. Give each student an opportunity to point to/say title on own book or checks for group to respond.____8. Teacher reads author’s name.____9. Gives each student an opportunity to say/point to author’s name on own book or checks for group to respond.___ 10. Teacher models opening book.___ 11 Gives each student an opportunity to open own book (1)without being told, then (2) prompts as necessary___ 12. Teacher asks prediction question.___13. Gives each student an opportunity to answer prediction question.

Task Analysis:Literacy Lesson

Reading the Chapter Read aloud pages: ___14.Teacher reads 1 or more pages aloud to get story started. (Read aloud only pages:___________OR may read aloud entire chapter, then go back to do the following:)Review last page read to practice text-point: ___15. Teacher points to each word in chosen sentence while reading aloud on “text point page.” ___16. Gives each student an opportunity to point to chosen line on “text point page” in own book.Identify vocabulary in context:___17. Teacher reads vocabulary in context..___18. Teacher points out (points physically or draws attention to) vocabulary word in context.___19. Gives students opportunity to point to/ say vocabulary word.Throughout the story, teacher will:

___ 20.Give students an opportunity to anticipate repeated story line.____21. Give students an opportunity to imitate repeated story line.

___ 22.Give students an opportunity to anticipate turning page without being told. ____23. Give students an opportunity to turn own page/ask for help to stay on same page with teacher.IV. COMPREHENSION____24. Teacher asks comprehension question of each student at end OR throughout story.____25 Gives opportunity for student to answer comprehension question providing scaffolding as necessary to get answer.

#Text-RelatedLiteral Inference

#Non-Text RelatedLiteral Inference

Thank you for teaching this lesson…remember to praise your students’ effort, too!

Materials (cont’d)

• Grade-appropriate Literature:– Chosen from school district’s list of recommended

supplemental reading– Adapted to Support Emergent Literacy Skills

• Chapters summarized & re-written at Grade 2-3 listening comprehension level

• Repeated story line on each page-change with each chapter to support main idea

• Picture symbols to support key vocabulary (character names, places, events, emotions, important details)

• Books provided to each student and overhead copy

Procedure

• Pre-baseline: – Teachers asked to “Show us a literacy lesson”– TA & Student Response Form used to observe

Teacher & Student Behaviors

• 1st General Workshop:– All teachers attended (i.e., Special and General

Education Teachers)– Overview of study– Collaborative planning session– Received first adapted book (Call of the Wild by Jack

London)

Procedure (cont’d)

• Baseline : – Teachers asked to “Show us a literacy lesson using the adapted

book”– Additional observation point for Teacher 2 (used adapted story

from previous year’s study)• Intervention:

– 1st Teacher enters intervention-self selected to accommodate teaching schedule

– Training site: chosen by teacher (school’s conference room)– Substitute provided with project funds– Trainers explain & demonstrate each step of TA– Trainers role play entire lesson, using TA to self-monitor, teacher

observes, compare observations– Teacher role plays entire lesson, uses TA to self-monitor,trainers

observe, compare observations

Procedure (Cont’d)

• Post-Intervention– Teachers continue to receive new titles (1

book / month)– Observations for 2 weeks immediately

following training– Teacher & Observer compared observation &

self-monitoring checklist after each visit

• Maintenance– Observations before each new teacher

entered training

Results

• Functional relationship indicated between training in use of Literacy Lesson TA (with self-monitoring) and number of steps followed in lesson plan delivery

• Functional relationship indicated between teacher training and:– Increase in overall student responses, with

• Decrease in prompted responses• Increase in independent responses

Teacher Behaviors

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Les

son

Pla

n S

tep

s

Teacher 1

Teacher 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Probes

Teacher 3

Baseline Intervention Maintenance

Teacher 1 : Student Responses

JoshTotal Responses

0

24

6

810

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526

Henry Total Responses

0

2

46

8

10

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526

Josh I

Josh P

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526

Henry I

Henry P

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526

Karen I

Karen P

Independent vs. PromptedKarenTotal Responses

0246

81012

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526

Ann Total Responses

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526

Ann I

Ann P

Independent vs. Prompted

Teacher 2: Student Responses

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425260

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526

Cheryl I

Cheryl P

Cheryl Total Responses Independent vs. Prompted

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526

Sam Total Responses

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526

Sam I

Sam P

Independent vs. Prompted

Teacher 3 : Student Responses

Interrater ReliabilityIRR recorded for 38% of lessons

• Teacher behaviors: – Between researchers: 97%– Between teachers & observers: 98%

• Student responses:– Between researchers: 94%

Social Validity

• Teacher Intervention Rating Profile– Teachers agreed that intervention was fair, practical,

and would recommend to other teachers.– Most useful component/s: Task Analysis & Adapted

Books• Teachers had little previous training in teaching reading

– Least useful: collaborative planning materials• Teachers reported lack of common planning time to work

with general education teacher

Limitations

• Small sample size

• Lessons delivered in self-contained setting

• Few opportunities for special education and general education teachers to collaborate

• Adapting books is labor-intensive; may not be practical for teachers to do on their own

Implications for Research

• Systematic replication in other locations

• Instructional delivery to groups of students

• Instruction in general education classroom

• Examine use of task analysis with self-monitoring to teach other subject areas (e.g., science, math)

Implications for Practice

• Staff development for administrators to support collaborative planning for special and general education teachers

• Parent & sibling workshops to encourage literacy behaviors at home

• Enlist support of peers to adapt and produce grade-appropriate books

Summary

• Evidence for teacher training that includes– Background information (e.g., 5 components

of reading, systematic instruction techniques)– Task analytic instruction

• Evidence for supporting student participation with– Adapted grade-appropriate materials– Increased opportunities to respond

Next Steps

• District-wide teacher training in use of lesson plan and adapting books

• Post adapted books on website

• Work with Parent Advocacy Center to train parents in use of story-based lessons using adapted grade-appropriate literature