Intellectual Disability = Literacy

8/10/2019 Intellectual Disability = Literacy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/intellectual-disability-literacy 1/4

“This longitudinal randomized-control trial investigated the effectiveness ofscientifically based reading instruction for students with IQs ranging from 40 to 80,including students with intellectual disability I!"# $tudents were randomly assignedinto treatment n - %&" and contrast n ' &(" grou)s# $tudents in the treatment grou)

received intervention instruction daily in small grou)s of * to 4 for a))ro+imately 40to (0 min for * to 4 academic years# n average, students in the treatment grou)made significantly greater )rogress than students in the contrast condition on nearlyall language and literacy measures# esults demonstrate the ability of students withlow IQs, including students with mild to moderate I!, to learn basic reading s.illswhen )rovided a))ro)riate, com)rehensive reading instruction for an e+tended)eriod of time/ )#8%"#

“In a review com)aring students with I! to students with 1!, 2affrey and 3uchs

00%" found that students with I! made smaller gains after intervention ande+)erienced more difficulty transferring new information, though both grou)sres)onded favorably to constant time delay, direct instruction, and strategyinstruction/ )# 88"#

“In contrast to e+)licit and systematic instruction in the areas of )honics, )honemicawareness, vocabulary, fluency, and com)rehension, most research related toteaching reading to students with I! has focused narrowly on training isolated s.ills

such as sight word reading or letter-sound corres)ondences see reviews byrowder, 5a.eman, $)ooner, 6hlgrim-!elzell, 7 6lgozzine, 00& rowder 7 9in,*::8 2onners, 00; <ose)h 7 $eery, 004 $aunders, 00%"# ecent research,however, suggests that students with I! can be taught to )rocess the internalstructure of s)o.en and )rinted words e#g#, radford, $hi))en, 6lberto, =ouchins, 73lores, 00& 2onners, osen>uist, $ligh, 6twell, 7 ?iser, 00& <ose)h 7 $eery,004 $tewart, =ayashi, 7 $aunders, 0*0"# 3urther, recent studies also show thatstudents with low IQs, including those who are nonverbal, res)ond )ositively tointensive, individualized, com)rehensive research-based reading instructionrowder, 6hlgrim-!elzell, 2ourtade, @ibbs, 7 3lowers, 008 rowder, 6hlgrim-!elzell, 3lowers, 7 a.er, 0* 1emons 7 3uchs, 0*0"/ )# 88"#

“These findings converge with earlier wor. by Ac@rew and Bvans 00;", who foundthat IQ did not )redict academic achievement as accurately as many )ractitionersassumed# Ac@rew and Bvans 00;" re)orted that IQ only accounts for 40C to (0Cof concurrent academic achievement, leaving the maDority (0C-&0C" ofachievement related to variables outside of intelligence# 1ast, some students with I!re>uired not only more intensive instruction but also more carefully scaffoldedinstruction within a narrow band of s.ills 6llor, 2ham)lin, @ifford, 7 Aathes, 0*0 6llor, @ifford, 6* taiba, Ailler, 7 2heatham, 0*;"/ )# 8:"#



“Enli.e )rior research, we )rovided com)rehensive instruction across multi)le years,allowing us to determine the relatively long-term im)act of evidence-basedinstruction for students with low IQs# These findings e+tend our )revious findings, asthe )ositive trends re)orted earlier continued through the fourth final" year of ourstudy 6llor, Aathes, oberts, 2heatham, et al#, 0*0 6llor, Aathes, oberts, <ones,

et al#, 0*0"/ )# ;0*"#

“The sobering reality is that a ty)ical student in our treatment grou) with an IQ of %(borderline range" would re>uire ( wee.s of intervention to move from 0 words )er minute w)m" to &0 w)m on firstgrade )assages# Thus, based on our data, studentswith IQs between %0 and 80 re>uire a))ro+imately one and a half school years tomove from reading 0 w)m to &0 w)m, the average reading fluency of an ending firstgrader# 6 student in the mild range (&-&:" would re>uire a))ro+imately threeacademic years to move from *0 w)m to &0 w)m# $tudents with IQs in the moderate

range 40-((" would re>uire a))ro+imately three and a half years to move from 0w)m to 0 w)m, which is roughly similar to the scores of students without disabilitiesmidway through first grade# This is consistent with a develo)mental lag hy)othesisas demonstrated by 5ei and colleagues 0**"# $tudents with lower IQs re>uireintensive instruction to ma.e these meaningful gains# $.ills that are ty)ically learnedin a matter of wee.s for students without disabilities may ta.e years for students withI!# The relatively large sam)le across a broad range of low IQ scores increases theli.elihood of generalizability to other sam)les/ )# ;0"#

“5e did find significant differences favoring the treatment condition for readingcom)rehension with a moderate effect size B$ ' 0#&:", but not for listeningcom)rehension B$ ' 0#0*"# These findings are encouraging, given that after ; yearssignificant differences in com)rehension had not been found see 6llor, Aathes,oberts, 2heatham, et al#, 0*0"/ )# ;0"#

“ur findings from the )resent study have several im)ortant im)lications for servingstudents with low IQs in general and s)ecial education settings# 3irst and foremost,students with low IQs, including those with I! and those with IQs in the borderlinerange i#e#, %0-80", should be )rovided with evidence-based reading instruction#

6lthough it might seem unsur)rising to some that these students made meaningful)rogress, our study )rovides strong em)irical evidence of reading )rogress acrossseveral academic years with a relatively large sam)le of students with low IQs who)artici)ated in a randomized control trial in which the treatment was delivered byhighly trained interventionists# $)ecifically, our data indicate what is )ossible forstudents with low IQs if they are given access to evidence-based reading instruction#The curriculum is very e+)licit and systematic and was delivered with fidelity,)roviding very consistent, e+)licit, and re)etitive routines, focusing on .ey s.ills, anddelivering clear and e+)licit modeling# Thus, students with low IQs do benefit fromcom)rehensive reading )rograms that were designed for struggling readers andreaders with 1!, but )rogress is slower/ )# ;0-;"#



“ F this study is both a clear demonstration of the )otential of students with low IQsto achieve meaningful literacy goals and a clear demonstration of the )ersistenceand intensity it ta.es to hel) children with low IQs learn to read# This longitudinalstudy )rovides solid em)irical su))ort for educators to )rovide intensive,com)rehensive, research-based reading instruction to all students, including those

with mild or moderate I!/ )#;04"#

6llor, <# =#, Aathes, G# @#, oberts, <# ?#, 2heatham, <# G#, 7 6l taiba, $# 0*4"# Isscientifically based reading instruction effective for students with below-average IQsHExceptional Children, 80 ;", 8%-;0&#

“It is encouraging that many students with significant cognitive disabilities $2! "

demonstrated an initial level of s.ill in word and )assage reading# 6nother )ositivefinding is that the )ercentage of students obtaining benchmar.s increased as gradelevel increased# This mirrors recent longitudinal findings 5ei, lac.orby, 7 $chiller,0**" demonstrating that students with I! continue to ma.e gains in reading s.illi#e#, letter-word identification and )assage com)rehension" throughout the highschool years# In other words, children with $2! do not a))ear to reach a )lateau intheir early school years# This finding, cou)led with the overall low level of readingobserved, a))ears to indicate that schools need to continue focusing efforts onim)roving reading instruction for children with $2! throughout high school#

5hen our results which could be characterized as the status >uo" are com)ared tothe results of targeted intervention studies, it is a))arent that im)rovements could bemade# 3or e+am)le, over (0C of children with I! in @rades * through 4 were able toreach the first-grade oral reading fluency benchmar. 40 words correct in * min" after receiving to ; years of intensive reading instruction )rovided by 6llor andcolleagues 6llor, Aathes, oberts, 2heatham et al#, 0*0"# In the current sam)le,only *4#:%C and 4#&%C of children with I! in @rades ; and 4, res)ectively, met thismar./ )# 4*:"# F

6dditionally, as students with $2! are learning to read, their instructional )rogramsneed to )rovide them more direct instruction of these s.ills and our measurementsystems need to reflect )erformance and )rogress in their learning Tindal et al#,00;, )# 4:*"/ )# 4*"# F If students with $2! are to im)rove their reading s.ills,their teachers will have to embrace the role of being a )rescri)tive teacher# In thisrole, teachers select )ractices that hold )romise e#g#, interventions that have beenem)irically validated to wor. for struggling readers without $2!", im)lement them,and use individual student data to evaluate res)onsiveness to the interventions )#4;"#



1emons, 2# <#, Jigmond, K#, ?loo, 6# A#, =ill, !# #, Arach.o, 6# 6#, Gaterra, A# 3#,ost, T#, 7 !avis, $# A# 0*;"# Gerformance of students with significant cognitivedisabilities on early-grade curriculum-based measures of word and )assage readingfluency# Exceptional Children, 794", 408-4&#

“Teachers of children with !$ and I! need to incor)orate more than sight-word onlya))roaches in their reading instruction# The small but growing research baseindicates that classroom teachers should no longer be as.ingL $hould I use asightword )rogram or a )honics )rogramH Instead, teachers should be )rovidingcom)rehensive reading interventions that e+tend beyond the reading of sight wordsto include )honological awareness and )honics instruction# Bven early )ro)onents of sight-word a))roaches have suggested that reading instruction needs to includeadditional com)onents if higher levels of reading are to be attained uc.ley, ird, 7yrne, *::&"#

Bvidence-based )rograms hold some )romise for children with !$ and I!# =owever,as our results indicate, the )rograms may need to be modified in im)ortant ways formeaningful im)rovements to be seen# There are several areas in which )otentialmodifications could enhance the effectiveness of the interventions for children with!$ and I!# 3irst, due to the relatively low rates of retention for learned items, anadditional focus on review and )ractice may be needed# $econd, increasing theamount of time students s)end a))lying newly ac>uired reading s.ills with novelwords and reading connected te+t will li.ely increase generalization/ )# 88"#

1emons, 2# <#, Arach.o, 6# 6#, ?ostewicz, !# B#, 7 Gaterra, A# 3# 0*"#Bffectiveness of decoding and )honological awareness interventions for children with!own $yndrome# Exceptional Children, 79*", &%-:0#

/1ittle is .nown about the relationshi)s between )honological )rocessing, language,and reading in children with intellectual disability I!"# 5e e+amined the structure of)honological )rocessing in :4 school-age children with mild I! and therelationshi)s between its com)onents and e+)ressive and rece)tive language andreading s.ills using structural e>uation modeling# Ghonological )rocessing consisted

of two distinct but correlated latent abilitiesL )honological awareness and namings)eed# Ghonological awareness had strong relationshi)s with e+)ressive andrece)tive language and reading s.ills# Kaming s)eed had moderate relationshi)swith these variables# esults suggest that children with I! bring the same s.ills tothe tas. of learning to read as children with ty)ical develo)ment, highlighting the factthat )honologically based reading instruction should be considered a viablea))roach/ )#;&("#

ar.er, # A#, $evci., # 6#, Aorris, # !#, 7 oms.i, A# 0*;"# 6 model of)honological )rocessing, language, and reading for students with mild intellectualdisability# American Journal on Intellectual and evelopmental isabilities, !!8 (",

;&(-80

Documents

Intellectual Disability = Literacy