See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230853108

Teaching Elementary Students With Multiple Disabilities to Participate in

Shared Stories

Article  in  Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities · March 2008

DOI: 10.2511/rpsd.33.1-2.3

CITATIONS

41

5 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Literacy and Communication in the Classroom: A mixed methods analysis of the interactions between academic interventions, AAC

communication and general education peers. View project

Self-Determination Synthesis Project View project

Diane M. Browder

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

181 PUBLICATIONS   3,836 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Pamela J Mims

East Tennessee State University

27 PUBLICATIONS   256 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Lynn Ann Ahlgrim-Delzell

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

44 PUBLICATIONS   1,002 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Diane M. Browder on 21 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities2008, Vol. 33, No. 1-2, 3-12

copyright 2009 byTASH

Teaching Elementary Students WithMultiple Disabilities to Participate

in Shared StoriesDiane M. Browder, Pamela J. Mims, Fred Spooner, Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Angel Lee

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Literacy may be one of the most important instruc-

tional areas for enhancing quality of life for all students.

One way to promote literacy skills is through engaging

students in the shared reading of a story. In this study,

methods for planning and implementing shared stories

for three students with multiple disabilities was evaluated

via a multiple probe design across participants. Because

the students had few consistent responses and complex

physical challenges, a team planned the literacy partici-

pation using principles of universal design for learning

(UDL). Outcomes indicate that all three students improved

literacy skills and added to the literature base that shared

stories can promote early literacy. Future research and im-

plications for practical team implementation of the aug-

mentative and alternative communication use and UDL

components of representation, expression, and engagement

are discussed.

DESCRIPTORS: shared stories, early literacy, mul-

tiple disabilities, systematic instruction, universal design

for learning

Literacy may be one of the most important areas of

instruction to enhance quality of life for all students. As

Copeland and Keefe (2007) describe, literacy provides

students with skills to increase their community partic-

ipation, to become less dependent on others, to gain new

knowledge, to explore new ideas, to participate in leisure

pursuits, to make individual choices about learning, and to

increase opportunities for employment. In recent years,

there has been an unprecedented focus on literacy among

American educators that has produced important re-

search summaries such as Put Reading First: The Research

Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read (National

Institute for Literacy, 2001) and programs like the Read-

ing First initiative (U.S. Department of Education, 2008).

At first, reading initiatives seemed to bypass students

with severe disabilities. Qualitative researchers found a

lack of focus on reading for this population (Katims, 2000:

Kliewer, 1998) and theorized that there might even

Address all correspondence and reprint requests to Diane M.Browder, PhD, Department of Special Education and ChildDevelopment, The University of North Caroline at Charlotte,9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223-0001.E-mail: dbrowder@uncc.edu

be some cultural expectations that this population couldnot benefit from reading instruction (Kliewer, Biklen,

& Kasa-Hendrickson, 2006). A comprehensive reviewof reading for this population by Browder, Wakeman,Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Algozzine (2006) re-vealed a limited research base with an overemphasis on

learning sight words conducted mostly with students with

moderate intellectual disabilities. However, this reviewalso found some evidence of learning by students withsevere intellectual disabilities as well as other compo-

nents of reading (e.g., phonics/decoding, comprehen-sion, fluency).

Despite this lack of emphasis on literacy for studentswith severe disabilities, several researchers such as

Erickson and Koppenhaver (1995), Kliewer and Landis(1999), and Ryndak, Morrison, and Sommerstein (1999)provided early demonstrations that this populationcould acquire meaningful literacy skills. Guidance for

literacy instruction has also emerged in recent books(Browder & Spooner, 2006; Copeland & Keefe, 2007;Downing, 2005; Ryndak & Alper, 2003). Furthermore,an increased focus on literacy skills for this populationhas been influenced by the No Child Left Behind Act

(2001) and the Individuals With Disabilities EducationImprovement Act (2004) requirements that studentsbe assessed annually for adequate yearly progress in

reading/language arts. For students unable to participatein large-scale testing programs with accommodations,states developed alternate assessments based on alter-nate achievement standards in language arts.

One of the challenges in planning this alternate achieve-ment is determining what outcomes to target. Recently,Browder et al. (in press) proposed a conceptual modelof literacy for students with severe developmentaldisabilities. In this model, the two primary outcomes forliteracy are enhanced quality of life through shared lit-erature and increased independence as a reader. Accord-ing to the model, throughout elementary school, everystudent should receive the opportunity to learn to readthrough comprehensive, systematic instruction that pro-

motes essential components in learning to read such asdecoding, comprehension, and vocabulary development(increased independence as a reader). Even more im-

portant, every student should have access to literaturethroughout their lives with adaptations as necessary, such

3

Browder et al.

as having text read aloud. Most students with severedisabilities will need direct instruction in how to partic-ipate in shared readings of this literature.

Shared reading, also known as read alouds, story-based lessons, or book sharing, plays an important rolein the development of early language and reading foryoung children (Ezell & Justice, 2005). For example, re-search with young children who are read to daily suggeststhat they tend to score higher on measures of vocabulary,comprehension, and decoding (Bus, van Ijzendoorn, &Pelligrini, 1995; Coyne, Simmons, Kame'enui, & Stoolmiller,2004; Senechal, Thomas, & Monker, 1995). Consistentexposure to read alouds with young children contributesto improved comprehension and vocabulary develop-ment (Vacca et al., 2006). Providing shared story expe-riences can be used to promote (a) print awareness, (b)phonological awareness, (c) alphabet knowledge, and (d)metalinguistic awareness (Justice & Kaderavek, 2002).Although most research has been with young chil-dren not identified with disabilities, shared stories alsohave been shown to be effective in promoting increasesin communication and literacy development for youngstudents with language impairments (Crowe, Norris, &Hoffman, 2004; Justice & Kaderavek, 2002, 2003, 2004;Justice, Kaderavek, Bowles, & Grimm, 2005; Justice &Pullen, 2003).

Although the benefits of shared reading are sup-ported in the literature, there are few examples of usingshared stories with students with severe disabilities. Ad-ditionally, the methods used with young children maynot be age or context appropriate for older students toacquire literacy skills. Read alouds may be a criticalmeans for students with severe disabilities who do notbecome independent readers to access literature through-out their lives. However, incorporation of assistive tech-nology, selection of age-appropriate books, and physicaland cognitive adaptations of books may be needed tomake them fully accessible. The use of these instructionalmethods may be some of the ways the shared story mayvary for this population.

In a search of the literature, two studies were foundthat used shared stories with students with severe dis-abilities. Skotko, Koppenhaver, and Erickson (2004) ex-amined the effects of shared story activities with girlsdiagnosed with Rett Syndrome for whom intentionalcommunication had not yet been established. The in-tervention included the use of augmentative communi-cation devices and several communication strategiessuch as asking prediction questions. Both increase incommunication and engagement with the literacy ma-terials were found. One important aspect of this studywas that the interventionist did not wait for the par-ticipant to acquire "prerequisite" communication skillsbut rather assumed and promoted participant under-standing and expression in the context of the lessons.

In a second study, Browder, Trela, and Jimenez (2007)examined the effects of having special education teach-

ers use adapted novels and a lesson plan template (taskanalysis) to help middle schools students with autismand moderate to severe intellectual disabilities learn toengage with grade-appropriate literature. In this study,the teachers read aloud adaptations of novels like Callof the Wild using text summaries and picture symbols.Some of the literacy skills the students acquired includedlocating the title, pointing to text to follow the reader,and using pictures to answer comprehension questions.

Both of these studies, along with earlier work (i.e.,Kliewer & Landis, 1999; Koppenhaver, 1995), illustratethe importance of the interactive nature of the literacylesson and of finding ways for students both to access thetext and to communicate about the readings. For stud-ents with complex, multiple disabilities, this accessibilitycan be. especially difficult. To promote access, use of aug-mentative and alternative communication (AAC) devicesmay be of great value in improving emerging literacyand communication skills (Erickson & Koppenhaver,1995; Snyder, Freeman-Lorentz, & McLaughlin, 1993;Stephenson & Linfoot, 1995). For students with complexintellectual and physical disabilities, simply providingAAC will not eliminate the barriers to literacy for severalreasons. Teaching some students with complex disabili-ties to use the AAC device consistently may be an ongo-ing challenge. For others, even the intentionality of thestudent's nonverbal communication (e.g., vocalizations oreye gazing) may be unclear. Consistent observable be-haviors of any type that can be used to document literacylearning may be difficult to identify. One way to addresscommunication challenges like these is to plan for literacyinstruction in a collaborative team. Collaborative teamsfor students with severe intellectual disabilities have beenshown to be beneficial in determIning what individualsupports may be necessary for students with severedisabilities (Hunt, Soto, Maier, Liboiron, & Bae, 2004).

Teams may also benefit from using principles of uni-versal design for learning (UDL) to create ways to makeliteracy lessons more accessible and effective (Centerfor Applied Special Technology, 1998). Although UDLhas many applications (e.g., development of digitaltexts), one option is to use the principles for planninghow to modify materials, response modes, and learningactivities to optimize learning. For example, Spooner,Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Browder (2007)trained preservice teachers to use the three componentsof UDL, which are (a) representation, (b) engagement,and (c) expression. To assist teachers with developinglesson plans to be inclusive of all students, Spooneret al. defined the components of UDL and illustratedhow each could be applied to a lesson that would includestudents with and without disabilities. These definitionswere as follows: (a) representation-"modifications thatcan be made to classroom materials that would make themmore accessible to students with disabilities (e.g., modi-fied books, larger print, digital text)"; (b) expression-"designating alternate methods of communication for

4

Participation in Shared Stories

students with limited speech (e.g., augmentative devices,computers, graphic programs)"; and (c) engagement-"the use of strategies that involve students with disabili-ties in the learning process (e.g., providing repetition,familiarity, and opportunities to respond)" (Spooner et al.,2007, p. 2). Although participants in the study of Spooneret al. learned to create lesson plans based on UDL, alimitation was that there was no measure of theirimplementation or student outcomes.

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate amethod for planning and implementing shared storiesfor students with the multiple disabilities that incorpo-rated both task analytic instruction and team planningusing principles of UDL. Similar to the students inSkotko et al. (2004), the target population was studentswith unclear intentionality of communication and min-imal responding to prior literacy lessons. Building on thework of Browder et al. (2007), a task analysis was usedfor teaching engagement with the shared stories, withthe additional goal of developing a strategy for indi-vidualizing this task analysis to the unique character-istics of each student. For this individualization, theplanning team considered the three components ofrepresentation, expression, and engagement. An addi-tional goal was to identify specific responses for thispopulation that could be used to document literacyprogress.

Method

Participants and SettingThe study took place in a special education classroom

in a large urban school system in the southeasternUnited States. Students in this context had partial schoollevel inclusion but not full inclusion. For example, theywent to the cafeteria for lunch, attended all specialprograms, and enrolled in a general education musicclass. Most instruction, including the literacy/languagearts development, took place in the self-contained class.The class had nine students, all of whom had complex,multiple disabilities including medical concerns. Theclassroom staff was comprised of a teacher who was

working toward licensure in special education and twoparaprofessionals. Although the students' personal careroutines, therapies, and medical needs required a largeportion of the staff's time, the teacher was committed tohaving daily literacy lessons. (Note: At the time thestudy was conducted, the teacher was participating in auniversity research project on literacy.) The teacher'sdaily literacy lessons included reading a book aloud andprompting students to engage with the book to thelargest extent possible (e.g., touching pictures, usingvoice output device to read a story line). Although theselessons worked well for some students in the class,others had only rare, inconsistent responses unless fullyphysically guided (e.g., to activate a switch). Sometimesit was difficult for the teacher to determine if the studentwas even aware of this guidance (e.g., unresponsive).This study was developed for these most difficult toreach students.

To be eligible for the study, students had to meet threecriteria: (a) few to no responses during literacy lessons,(b) inconsistent use of AAC, and (c) difficult to interpretintentionality of nonsymbolic communication such asmovements and sounds. Demographic information forthe three participating students is shown in Table 1. Allthree students were classified in their psychologicalevaluations as having "profound" intellectual disabili-ties with lQs below 20 and developmental levels below1 year. Although psychological evaluations may fail tocapture the abilities of students with complex, multipledisabilities, this information is provided here for futureresearch replications. All three students also needed ex-tensive support for personal care (e.g., feeding, dressing,positioning) and medical management (e.g., seizures;see Table 1). What is most relevant for educational con-sideration is that the students were not yet responding toshared stories, and so the benefit of their literacy in-struction was unknown at best. One of the challengesin determining this benefit was identifying responsesfor the students to "show what they know." All as-sessments and interventions were conducted in the stud-ents' elementary special education classroom. The second

Table IStudent Demographic

Student Age Gender Diagnoses according to school records Aids and services Communication and literacy

Student 1 7 Female Severe/profound delays- spina bifida; Wheel chair: single switch; Inconsistent communicationcranial shunts; hydrocephalus: OT. PT. speech attempts: inconsistent responseseizures to pictures; inconsistent

responding during read alouds

Student 2 7 Male Profound delays; cerebral palsy, Wheelchair; single switch: Cries when hungry or experiencingseizures: scoliosis OT, PT, speech discomfort; attention to speaker

only, not to object or pictures;no response to read alouds

Student 3 10 Male Profound delays; cytomegalovirus; Wheelchair: head switch: Inconsistent use of eye gaze: smilescerebral palsy: microcephaly; OT. PT, speech when happy; does not expressspastic quadriplegia- seizure discomfort: no response todisorder; hemiplegia pictures or read alouds

5

Browder et a].

author, a doctoral student in special education and aformer licensed special education teacher with 7 years ofexperience with students with multiple disabilities,served as the interventionist. This interventionist metwith the classroom teacher, a paraprofessional, a specialeducation administrator, an occupational therapist, andat least one member of the research team to plan eachstudent's adaptation of the task analysis. Other membersof the classroom team (e.g., vision specialist, speechtherapist) were invited but unavailable to participate asthey were on maternity leave or had schedule conflicts.

MaterialsThree popular elementary picture books were used

for the intervention. Each book was adapted to containthe student's name as the main character in the book toincrease attending to the story. The books were alsoadapted to contain a repeated story line for the mainidea of the book and to use a surprise element (e.g.,balloons, lights turning out, etc.). In addition, sensorymaterials and objects to go along with the story wereused during each story-based lesson. Table 2 givesexamples of the adaptations used for each book.

Dependent Variable and Data Collection ProceduresDependent variable

Because the participating students often made noresponses when a book was read aloud, a task analysiswas created that focused on promoting active respond-ing and comprehension during the reading of the story(see Table 3). For each response, the observable behav-iors that could count as independent correct responseswere identified based on responses the students couldphysically make without assistance. There was a totalof 16 steps in the task analysis, including three steps

repeated three times and seven other steps that onlyoccurred once during the story lesson. The dependentvariable was the number of independent student re-sponses during the reading of the story (out of possible16 steps). Repeated steps were scored on their first threeoccurrences (e.g., first three times the student's name inthe story was read, with exception of the repeated storyline, which was introduced one time and then scored thenext three times) but occurred from three to six timesin the story.

Several of the steps of the task analysis targeted earlycomprehension (see steps with asterisks in Table 3). Forexample, a prediction question ("What do you think thestory is about?") gave the student the opportunity toguess the book's content by indicating one of two ob-jects. This response was considered correct if the studentguessed either option as long as the student made a clearchoice. Second, the use of turn taking with a repeatedstory line gave some indication that the student antic-ipated the next line of the read aloud. For example, thereader began the line (e.g., "Terrible, horrible..."), andthe student used a voice output device to finish it (e.g.,"...no good day!"). Finally, the student was asked at theend of the book what the story was about. In this secondpresentation of two objects, only one option was correct.The steps of the task analysis and definitions ofindependent correct responses are shown in Table 3.

Although only independent responses were graphedand used in the research design, general reactions andno responses were also scored for instructional consid-eration. It was believed that some students might onlymake a reaction that could be considered improvementif previously nonresponsive during an entire story. Areaction was defined as some change in behavior state

Table 2Book Adaptations

BlooK

Adaptations

Repeated story line

Objects used to promotemeaning while reading

Character nameadaptation

Surprise element addednear end of story

Joseph Had a Little Overcoat,by Simms Taback

Book was shortened (pagesremoved and lines werecut from text), pages werelaminated, objects andpicture symbols werevelcroed into the text,students name wasvelcroed in as a character

It was old and worn

Overcoat, jacket, scarf.tie, balloon

Student's name used for maincharacter-Joseph

When the coat was only astring, a balloon wasreleased from a bagwith a string

Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible,No Good, Very Bad Day,by Judith Viorst

Book was shortened (pagesremoved and lines were cutfrom text), pages werelaminated, objects and picturesymbols were velcroed intothe text, students name wasvelcroed in as a character

Terrible, horrible, no good, verybad day

Gum, candy bar, cereal box,shoes

Student's name used for maincharacter-Alexander

When the lights burned out inthe story, the lights wereturned off in the classroom

Dirty Birtie, by David Roberts

Book was shortened (pagesremoved and lines were cutfrom text), pages werelaminated, objects and picturesymbols were velcroed intothe text, students name wasvelcroed in as a character

No Bertie, that's dirty Birtie!

Stuffed dog, piece of candy,rubber worms and bugs

Student's name used forcharacters throughout(e.g., Bertie's sister)

When Bertie's sister dumped abucket of bugs on Bertie,bucket of rubber bugs wasdumped in front of the student

Table

2

Book

Adaptations

6

Participation in Shared Stories

Table 3Task Analysis Used to Score Participating in the Shared Stories

Definition forStep independent correct

1. Choose book to read

2. Attend to chosen bookwhile title and authorare read

3. Attends to material used tointroduce the story's theme

4. Makes a prediction whenasked, "What do you thinkthis story is about?" andshown two objectsa

5. Reacts to name embeddedthree different times withinthe story within 2 seconds ofhearing it read (scored firstthree times occurs in story)a

6. Focuses on object within2 seconds when named instory and displayed tostudent (scored first threetimes occurs in story)ý'

7. Participates in reading bycompleting repeated storyline using a switch; forexample, "The coat was"and the switch says "oldand worn" (the repeatedstory line was introducedone time and then scoredthe next three times itoccurred in story)'

8-13. Steps 5-7 are repeatedtwice as the story is read

14. Reacts to surprise elementnear end of story

15. When represented withobjects used for predictionand asked, "What was thestory about?" choosescorrect object (generalstory comprehension)a

16. When asked "Do youwant me to read it again?"indicates yes for "readmore" and no for"finished": teacher presentscards with enlarged yes/nosymbols that are color cuedand raised with puffy paint(green-yes: red-no)

Touches one book, holdseye gaze on one book,or reaches toward one

Holds eye gaze on chosenbook cover for at least2 seconds

Holds eye gaze towardmaterial for at least2 seconds

Touches one object, holdseye gaze on one object,or reaches toward one

Vocalizes, laughs, smiles,turns head towardreader, opens eyes, orlifts head

Touches object, holds eyegaze on object, or reachestoward it

Hits switch within 2 secondsof reading of first halfof line (wait longer ifstudent is movingtoward switch untilresponse is completed);do not score correct ifhits switch randomly atother times duringreading of the story

Vocalizes, laughs, smiles,turns head, opens eyes,or lifts head

Touches one object, holdseye gaze on one object,or reaches toward one

Touches one symbol, holdseye gaze on one symbol,or reaches toward one

a These steps were considered indicators of early comprehen-sion of the text that had just been read aloud.

like opening closed eyes, lifting or moving the head, ormaking a sound after being silent.

Data collectionWhile conducting the story-based lesson, the inter-

ventionist scored the student's response on each step of

7

the story-based lesson. A second observer (anothermember of the research team) observed 30% of thelessons and scored the student's responses for purposesof computing interobserver agreement. Each step wasscored as independent correct (+), reaction (R), or noresponse (NR). A few responses could have an error(e.g., incorrect object selected) and were scored with aminus (-). Agreement was calculated by taking thenumber of agreements and by dividing it by the numberof agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by100. The same second observer collected information onprocedural fidelity by scoring whether the intervention-ist presented each step of the task analysis. Anothermember of the research team scored procedural fidelityduring each of the planning meetings by checkingwhether each step of the task analysis was discussedusing the components of UDL. For each of these, thenumber of present items was divided by the total num-ber of items and multiplied by 100 to obtain a proce-dural fidelity score.

Research DesignA multiple probe single subject design across partici-

pants (Tawney & Gast, 1984) was used to examine theeffects of individualizing a task analysis on the numberof student responses in the story-based lesson. Duringbaseline, all three students received a one-to-one readaloud of the story, and the interventionist scored eachstep of the task analysis. After all three students showedstable or decreasing data in the baseline phase, thestudents received the intervention in a staggered fash-ion. Once the first student began to increase indepen-dent responses (change in trend and/or level), thesecond student also began to receive the intervention.Once this student improved, the third student began toreceive the intervention. Because the participants hadshown no progress in prior literacy instruction and thestudy took place in the latter part of the school year, nospecific mastery criteria were set. Instead, each studentreceived intervention as soon as the prior student's datasuggested a functional relationship. Once entering in-tervention, all three participants continued to receivethe literacy sessions until the end of the school year. Theintervention was implemented approximately threetimes per week for about 30 min per session for a totalof three and a half months. A session was defined asexposure to all 16 steps of the task analysis (i.e., onecomplete reading of the book).

ProceduresBaseline

The adapted books and materials indicated in Table 2were used in baseline as well as intervention. The in-terventionist presented two of the three books and gavethe student the opportunity to choose one (first step oftask analysis). If the student made no response or an

Browder et al.

indistinguishable response (reaction), the intervention-ist said, "I'm not sure which you want. Let's read thisone" and began the story. The interventionist then readeach page of the book pausing to give the student theopportunity to make each response shown on the taskanalysis. All responses were scored immediately afterthe opportunity was given. During baseline, the inter-ventionist read with animation but did not prompt orpraise student responses.

InterventionIntervention began by scheduling a meeting of the

planning team to review the task analysis and to planways to increase student responding. In the meeting, theinterventionist used a template that listed each step ofthe task analysis and the three components of UDL (i.e.,representation, expression, and engagement). The teambegan by reviewing the baseline data. If the student hadmade an independent response, no further planning wasconducted for that step. For steps for which there was noresponse or only a reaction, the team considered threeways to improve student responding. First, the inter-ventionist asked the team, "Is there a better way topresent this step (representation)?" For expression, thequestion addressed was, "Is there an alternative way thestudent could more easily make the response?" For en-gagement, the question was "How can this response beprompted so student learns the desired response? Howcan the prompt be faded so the student responds withoutteacher assistance? Are there other ways to get the

student actively engaged?" In general, the team plannedfor the use of a least intrusive system of prompts andpraise for each step correct. What needed to be indi-vidualized was the format of the prompt (e.g., using alight pen to indicate the correct choice for an eye gazer)and the student's response latency (e.g., waiting longerfor a student to make the response). An example of thetypes of changes made is shown in Table 4. After thisplanning meeting, the interventionist conducted dailyshared stories using the changes in the task analysis fromthe UDL planning. The interventionist also used sys-tematic prompting and feedback for each step of thetask analysis. If the student made no response, the in-terventionist would use the least intrusive prompt feasi-ble for the student to respond and then more promptingif needed. For example, if the student did not hit theswitch, the interventionist would say "show me withyour switch." If no response, the interventionist wouldpress the switch and say, "show me like this." If still noresponse, the interventionist would guide the motorresponse (hitting the switch). Some responses only leantthemselves to one prompt (e.g., light cue for an eyegazer), and so this prompt would be delayed by twoor more seconds across sessions. If the student madethe response with or without prompting, the teacherused specific praise (e.g., "Good! You are looking atJoseph's tie."). If the student made no response afterprompting and physical prompting was not feasible(e.g., eye gazer), the teacher moved on to the next stepwithout comment. If the student began to make an

Table 4Examples of the Team Planning for Use of UDL to Individualize the Task Analysis

Examples of changes made Examples of changes made Examples of changes madeUDL component for Student I for Student 2 for Student 3

Representation: Is there a Displayed objects on bulletin Use a light box behind the Use a light box behind thebetter way to present this board behind interventionist objects objectsopportunity to respond so and required student to look Presented two book options byit is clearer to the student? toward board for a response sweeping in each book across

student's full field of visionExpression: Is there an Changed switch from Big Mac Changed switch from Big Mac Hold objects vertically so

alternative way the student switch (Able Net) to Jelly switch (Able Net) to Jelly student can eye gaze up orcould respond? Bean Switch (Able Net) Bean Switch (Able Net) down versus left to right

Moved head switch from leftside of students head tothe right

Engagement: What prompt Praised exact student response Used low lighting in the room Used low lighting in thecould be used to get the Used low lighting in the to reduce high tone and room to reduce high tonestudent to make the room to relax and increase increase engagement and increase engagementresponse? How should engagement Before beginning lesson, Before beginning lesson,it be faded? Before beginning lesson, "warmed up" arm and head "warmed up" arm and

"warm up" arm and head movement using music and head movement usingmovement using music practiced switch activation music and practiced

Increased wait time from Used light pen and tapping to switch activation2 to 5 seconds before cue student to look at one Used light pen and tappinggiving prompts of the objects or books to cue student to look at

Increased wait time from 2 to one of the objects or books5 seconds Increased wait time from 2 to

5 seconds

8

Participation in Shared Stories

error on any step, the prompt was given immediately(see Table 4).

Social validityBecause the study was implemented by a member of

the research team, the classroom teacher was asked toassess the social validity of the study. The survey ques-tions were designed to discover the special educator'sperspective of the UDL team planning process forfuture literacy instruction.

Results

AgreementProcedural fidelity for reviewing all steps of the task

analysis with all three UDL components during teamplanning meetings was 100%. Procedural fidelity for theinterventionist was delivery of all steps of the task anal-ysis 100%. Interobserver agreement for scoring the

Baseline

00..

5)Cn

5.)

c0

U

,.O

C

C

E

5)

student responding was 97% for Student 1, 94% forStudent 2, and 92% for Student 3.

Student DataStudent performance data are displayed in Figure 1.

During baseline, Student I completed a mean of 7.3 stepsof the 16-step task analysis independently, with a rangefrom 6 to 8 steps. After intervention, the responsesincreased (M = 13.09, range from 12 to 15). Duringbaseline, Student 2 completed a mean of 3 steps of the16-step task analysis independently, with a range fromI to 4 steps. After intervention, the responses increased(M = 10.2, range from 7 to 13). During baseline, Student 3completed a mean of 2 steps of the 16-step task analysisindependently, with a range from 0 to 5 steps. Afterintervention, the responses increased (M - 8.5, rangefrom 6 to 11; see Figure 1). For all three students, someof the independent responses were those designated inTable 3 as indicators of early comprehension.

Intervention

Student 1

Student 2

*1

0

Student 3

0 0

SessionsFigure 1. Number of correct steps of task analysis across three participants.

i i B

9

Browder et al.

Social ValidityThe classroom teacher participated in the planning

meetings and reported in a follow-up survey that sheused ideas from the planning meeting in her ongoingliteracy lessons. The teacher also reported that after thestudy, the students were included in more classroomread alouds and seemed to enjoy them more. Addition-ally, the teacher reported that Student 1 and Student 2participated more in all classroom literacy activities, andStudent 3 improved in consistency of communication ingeneral.

DiscussionAll three students in the current study increased their

independent responses during story-based lessons. Al-though most of the nine students in this class were re-sponsive to the literacy strategies being implementedas part of another study (Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell,Courtade, Gibbs, & Flowers, 2008), the classroom teacheridentified these three students for the current studybecause of their lack of response. Preliminary observa-tions by members of the research team confirmed thatthe students were largely passive during read alouds anddid not use AAC consistently, and their communicativeintent was difficult to interpret. On the basis of theseobservations, it was hypothesized that one or morestudents might only show simple reactions (i.e., changein behavior state) as a result of the intervention, andso these reactions were scored. Instead, all three stud-ents exceeded this expectation with increased indepen-dent responses. Interestingly, the adaptations of eachbook alone (e.g., use of objects, repeated story lines)resulted in some responding by each student duringthe baseline condition. In contrast, this responding waswell below the opportunities to respond and decreasedacross days of baseline, perhaps when the novelty of firstseeing the books was past. Once the intervention-ist applied principles of UDL to increase engagementand taught the task analysis using systematic promptingand feedback, all students increased their independentresponses.

These outcomes add to the literature that sharedstories that promote early literacy and communicationskills for young children (Bus et al., 1995; Coyne et al.,2004; Justice & Kaderavek, 2003; Senechal et al., 1995;Vacca et al., 2006), including those with language im-pairments (Crowe et al., 2004; Justice et al., 2005; Justice& Kaderavek, 2002, 2003; Justice & Pullen, 2003).Shared stories also have been used in a few studies withstudents with severe intellectual disabilities (Browderet al., 2007; Skotko et al., 2004). An important differencein the current study is in the outcomes targeted forlearning during the shared stories, which were earlybook awareness skills. In prior studies, the target pop-ulation had more advanced communication skills, and sothe learning targets were also more advanced. For ex-

ample, Ezell and Justice (2005) recommend using sharedstories to develop such language skills as syntax, se-mantics, and pragmatics and emergent literacy skillssuch as print and phonological awareness. Browder et al.(2007) used shared stories to teach students with severedisabilities to point to text read and use pictures tosummarize the main idea of each chapter in an adaptednovel. Similar to Browder et al., students in the currentstudy needed direct instruction to be active participantsin the read aloud. In contrast, their targeted outcomeswere more foundational, including skills like choosing abook and focusing on objects related to the story. Thenext steps for these students would be to build on theearly comprehension and attention responses acquiredin this study through generalization to other books andto increase the number of text-dependent responses(i.e., responses that require more specific understandingof the story's content).

The use of team planning with UDL is unique for theshared story literature and provided an important strat-egy for ensuring that the students could participate fullyin the lesson. For example, Student 1 was much morelikely to move an arm to activate the switch after theprelesson warm-ups or to focus on objects when pre-sented with a light box. Although this study was con-ducted within a special education class, recruiting a teamto plan how a student may better participate in a readaloud has the potential for use in engaging students withsevere disabilities in inclusive settings. For example, theparticipants in the study of Spooner et al. (2007) in-cluded teachers in general education preservice whowere able to plan for students with disabilities whenfollowing a UDL model. By including the general edu-cation teacher on the team and by focusing on the threecomponents of UDL (i.e., expression, engagement, andrepresentation), read alouds could be planned thatwould benefit all students. For young students like thosein this study, applying these principles might help earlychildhood teachers plan ways to present materials andget all students ready to respond. For older students,reading a text summary before reading aloud a portionof the chapter for a novel could make the content moreaccessible for all students in the class.

Although the results of this study were encouraging,some limitations should be noted. First, instruction wasprovided in a one-to-one format. Whether in a generaleducation or in a self-contained class, students oftenreceive literacy in a group format. A question for futureresearch is whether the students would be able toacquire these responses in a small group format. Priorcase studies by Kliewer and Landis (1999) and Ryndaket al. (1999) suggest that small group literacy experi-ences with students who are nondisabled might beespecially beneficial. In these groups, peers might taketurns reading aloud whereas the student with disabilitiesis given the opportunity to engage with the story byusing some of the responses shown in the task analysis

10

Participation in Shared Stories

for this study (e.g., choosing the book, "reading" a storyline using AAC, predicting using an object selection). Asecond limitation is that the planning team processidentified some AAC devices that might have beenbeneficial but could not be procured in the timing of thestudy (e.g., special voice output communication de-vices). A recommendation for future research is to do anAAC evaluation before beginning the investigation andprocuring all necessary equipment. A third limitation isthat this study took place in a self-contained setting.Results may have been different if conducted in an in-clusive grade-appropriate classroom. Future researchneeds to be conducted in the student's grade level gen-eral education classroom to have a better understandingif the changes to the components of UDL would bebeneficial to all students. A fourth limitation is that theintervention was conducted by a member of the researchteam rather than the classroom teacher due to some ofthe logistics of the context (e.g., time to implement three1:1 read alouds). Future research should consider havingthe special or general education teacher serve the role ofthe interventionist, which might be feasible with smallgroup instruction. A fifth limitation is the team shouldideally include all members of the IEP team. In thecurrent study, some members of the IEP team were notavailable. The addition of a speech language pathologist,physical therapist, and family members would have beenvaluable not only in planning the intervention itself butalso in planning how some of the same strategies couldbe used throughout the student's day. Finally, mainte-nance measures were not conducted due to time con-straints of both student absences and end of the schoolyear. Additional measures of generalization would alsostrengthen this research. In the current study, studentsused their emerging skills across three different booksthat varied daily depending on which book the studentselected. Collecting additional data on generalizationacross readers (e.g., peers, teachers, family members)and contexts (e.g., media center, home) with stakeholderinput about the procedures would provide furtherinformation on both the breadth and the social validityof learning.

In applying this intervention to practice, the first stepwould be to identify the literature being used by thegeneral education teacher. These books can be modifiedas described in Table t, or the team may be able to usecomputer software with digitalized text for ease ofaccess. Next, the planning team would consider how thestudent can indicate understanding. The task analysisfrom this study offers a starting point for planning whatthe student would be expected to do during the sharedstories. By asking the questions adapted from UDLgiven in Table 4, the read aloud lessons can be plannedin a way to be inclusive of the student with complexdisabilities. When the read aloud is one to one (e.g.,peer reads the book), the student may have theopportunity to make all 16 responses. When a group

format is used, the student may take a turn and makeselected responses (e.g., predicting what the story will beabout- "reading" the repeated story line with AAC).Progress can be monitored by scoring steps that thestudent performs. Although the students prompted re-sponses or even general reactions may be scored to showprogress toward the goal, independent responses indi-cating early comprehension can be the target as shownin this study.

In conclusion, this study adds to the growing researchon promoting literacy with students with severe dis-abilities and to the use of shared stories. Students withthe most significant disabilities are underrepresented inthe research on literacy. This is one of the first demon-strations of the use of shared stories with this popula-tion. Although more research is needed to build anevidence base for the use of shared stories with thispopulation, this may be viewed as a practice with prom-ise for engaging students with limited communication inthe literature of their age group.

References

Browder, D. M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G., Gibbs. S. L.,& Flowers, C. (2008). Evaluation of the effectiveness of anearly literacy program for students with significant develop-mental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 33-52.

Browder, D. M., Gibbs, S., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G.,Mraz, M., & Flowers, C. (2008). Literacy for students withsignificant cognitive disabilities-What should we teach and whatshould we hope to achieve? Remedial and Special Education.Prepublished June 17, 2008; 10. 117710741932508315054.

Browder, D. M., & Spooner, F (Eds.) (2006). Teaching languagearts, math, and science to students with significant cognitivedisabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Browder, D. M., Trela, K. C., & Jimenez, B. A. (2007). Increas-ing participation of middle school students with significantcognitive disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Develop-mental Disabilities, 22, 206-219.

Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell,L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading instructionfor individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Excep-tional Children, 72, 392-408.

Bus, A. G., van ljzendoorn, M. H., & Pelligrini, A. D. (1995).Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: Ameta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy.Review of Educational Research, 65, 1-21.

Center for Applied Special Technology [CAST]. (1998). Whatisuniversal design for learning? Wakefield, MA: Author. Re-trieved June 16, 2008, from http://www.cast.org/research/udl/index.html.

Copeland, S. R., & Keefe, E. B. (Eds.) (2007). Effective literacyinstruction for students with moderate or severe disabilities.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Coyne, M. D., Simmons, D. C., Kame'enui, E. J., & Stoolmiller,M. (2004). Teaching vocabulary during shared storybookreadings: An examination of differential effects. Exception-alit'. 12, 145-162.

Crowe. L. K., Norris. J. A., & Hoffman, R R. (2004). Trainingcaregivers to facilitate communication participation of pre-school children with language impairment during storybookreading. Journal of Conmtunication Disorders, 37, 177-196.

Downing, J. E. (Ed.) (2005). Teaching communication skills tostudents with severe disabilities (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes.

11

Browder et al.

Erickson, K. A., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (1995). Developing aliteracy program for children with severe disabilities. ReadingTeacher, 48, 676-685.

Ezell, H. K., & Justice, L. M. (2005). Shared storybook reading:Building young children's language & emergent literacy skills.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Hunt, P, Soto, G., Maier, J., Liboiron, N., & Bae, S. (2004).Collaborative teaming to support preschoolers with severedisabilities who are placed in general education programs.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24, 132-142.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of2004, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004). (reauthorization of theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997).

Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. (2002). Using shared storybookreading to promote emergent literacy. Teaching ExceptionalChildren, 34, 8-13.

Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. (2003). Topic control duringshared storybook reading: Mothers and their children withlanguage impairments. Topics in Early Childhood SpecialEducation, 23, 137-140.

Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. (2004). Exploring the continuumof emergent to conventional literacy: Transitioning speciallearners. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20, 231-236.

Justice, L. M., Kaderavek, J., Bowles, R., & Grimm, K. (2005).Language impairment, parent-child shared reading, andphonological awareness: A feasibility study. Topics in EarlyChildhood Special Education, 25, 143-156.

Justice, L. M.. & Pullen, P. C. (2003). Promising interventionsfor promoting emergent literacy skills: Three evidence-basedapproaches. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23,99-113.

Katims, D. S. (2000). Literacy instruction for people with mentalretardation: Historical highlights and contemporary analysis.Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Develop-mental Disabilities, 35, 3-15.

Kliewer, C. (1998). Citizenship in the literate community: Anethnography of children with Down syndrome and the writ-ten word. Exceptional Children, 64, 167-180.

Kliewer, C., Biklen, D., & Kasa-Hendrickson, C. (2006). Whomay be literate? Disability and resistance to the cultural de-nial of competence. American Educational Research Journal,43, 163-192.

Kliewer, C., & Landis, D. (1999). Individualizing literacy in-struction for young children with moderate to severe dis-abilities. Exceptional Children, 66, 85-100.

Koppenhaver, D. A. (1995). AAC, FC, and the ABCs: Issues

and relationships. American Journal of Speech LanguagePathology, 4, 5-14.

National Institute for Literacy. (2001). Put reading firstc The re-search building blocks for teaching children to read. Washington,DC: Author.

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

Ryndak, D. L., & Alper, S. (2003). Curriculum and instructionfor students with significant disabilities in inclusive settings(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Ryndak, D. L., Morrison, A. P, & Sommerstein, L. (1999).Literacy before and after inclusion in general education set-tings: A case study. Journal of the Association for Personswith Severe Handicaps, 24, 5-22.

Senechal, M., Thomas, E., & Monker, J. A. (1995). Individualdifferences in vocabulary acquisition. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 87, 218-229.

Skotko, B. G., Koppenhaver, D. A., & Erickson, K. A. (2004).Parent reading behaviors and communication outcomes ingirls with Rett syndrome. Exceptional Children, 70, 145-166.

Snyder, T. L., Freeman-Lorentz, K., & McLaughlin, T. F(1993). The effects of augmentative communication on vocab-ulary acquisition with primary age students with disabilities.B. C. Journal of Special Education, 17, 73-93.

Spooner, F, Baker, J. N., Harris, A. A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., &Browder, D. M. (2007). Effects of training in universal designfor learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and Spe-cial Education, 28, 108-116.

Stephenson, J., & Linfoot, K. (1995). Choice-making as anatural context for teaching early communication board useto a ten year old language and severe intellectual disability.Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Dis-abilities, 20, 263-286.

Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research inspecial education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Reading first. RetrievedJune 12, 2008, from http:l/www.ed.gov/programslreadingfirstlindex.html.

Vacca, J., Vacca, R., Grove, M., Burkey, L., Lenhart, L., &McKeon, C. (2006). Reading and learning to read (6th ed.).Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Received: June 23, 2008Final Acceptance: November 10, 2008Editor in Charge: Roberta Schnorr

12

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Teaching Elementary Students With Multiple Disabilitiesto Participate in Shared Stories

SOURCE: Res Pract Pers Severe Disabil 33 no1/2 Spr/Summ 2008

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited.

View publication statsView publication stats