Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

There is increasing awareness of the high levels of support needed for literacy learning for children on the autism spectrum. Although research has investigated the quality of the classroom literacy environment, little attention has been paid to examining the classroom literacy environment in specialist classrooms catering specifically for children on the spectrum. The current study used the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO) to guide observations, combined with stimulated recall and semi-structured teacher interviews to explore the classroom environments and teacher practices used to support children on the spectrum. Ten teachers from two primary specialist schools participated. The findings highlighted the strong focus on language development and foundational literacy skills across the early years in both schools. Findings demonstrated the potential utility of an observation checklist such as the ELLCO in guiding observations when augmented by stimulated recall interviews. Suggestions are provided for assessing the literacy environment in specialist classrooms for children on the spectrum.

Keywords

Autism spectrum disorder literacy learning literacy teaching classroom environment measurement

Introduction

Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition characterised by impairments in social communication combined with repetitive and restricted behaviours and interests (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). Recent prevalence estimates indicate approximately 2–3% of children are on the autism spectrum¹ (Maenner et al., 2020; May et al., 2020). A growing body of research has investigated the academic achievements of children on the spectrum (see review, Keen et al., 2015). There is increasing awareness of the high levels of support needed for literacy learning in this population (McIntyre et al., 2017; Nation et al., 2006; Westerveld et al., 2018), with many children on the spectrum showing persistent literacy difficulties. This is of major concern, as literacy levels are recognised as having a crucial influence upon quality of life (Kaderavek & Rabidoux, 2004) and health outcomes across the lifespan (Rajda & George, 2009; Saha, 2006). The quality of literacy learning experiences and classroom environments during the early years of schooling can critically influence literacy development (Early et al., 2007; Guo et al., 2012) and literacy outcomes for all children, especially those on the autism spectrum (Browder et al., 2009; Clifton et al., 2017; O’Leary et al., 2019). Although previous research has investigated the quality of classroom literacy environments in inclusive settings, the current study addresses a gap in knowledge by examining the classroom literacy environment in specialist classrooms catering specifically for children on the spectrum. Addressing this gap is important for informing future supports and learning experiences across all settings including specialist settings, where individuals on the spectrum with higher support needs may receive their education.

Reading difficulties in children on the autism spectrum

Consistent with the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986), reading comprehension is the product of two main components, word recognition and listening comprehension, with proficiency across both required for reading comprehension to occur. Children on the spectrum may be particularly vulnerable to difficulties in acquiring and developing their reading skills due to both core autism features and commonly co-occurring conditions (see Westerveld & Paynter, 2021). Social communication skills may manifest as difficulties with pragmatic communication, reduced social interest, and/or difficulties with responding to joint attention, each of which may impact on opportunities to engage and learn from literacy learning opportunities. Exacerbating social communication difficulties, while no longer part of the diagnostic criteria (APA, 2013), oral language difficulties commonly observed in children on the autism spectrum (see meta-analysis by Kwok et al., 2015) are likely to impact on reading comprehension (as per the Simple View of Reading). Long-term reading ability is predicted by early reading success (Sparks et al., 2014) and literacy is key to academic achievement. Therefore, any early difficulties with reading are likely to have long-term consequences for future learning.

The classroom literacy environment

The classroom literacy environment has been examined across various dimensions, usually encompassing a focus on both the structure of the physical environment (e.g. access to books and writing materials) and the nature of the instruction provided (e.g. teacher practices; Guo et al., 2012). Studies examining the quality of classroom literacy environments have highlighted the importance of both structural and instructional dimensions. The structural dimension includes classrooms having a wide variety of reading and writing materials available including books that reflect a range of interests, genres, and complexity, as well as examples of print being displayed and used for meaningful purposes (e.g. signs, lists, calendars). The instructional dimension relates to the practices that teachers employ to engage and interact with children to facilitate their literacy development. Examples include teachers employing language facilitation strategies, scaffolding higher-level thinking, and providing explicit teaching (Guo et al., 2012).

The quality of classroom literacy environments has been explored across a variety of contexts including early childhood centres and primary school classrooms (e.g. see Burch & Evangelista, 2016), as well as in mainstream and inclusive settings. In response to the identified importance of the classroom literacy environment to support literacy instruction, a number of tools have been developed such as the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO) Pre-K tool (Smith et al., 2008); the Classroom Literacy Environmental Profile (Wolfersberger et al., 2004); and the Teacher Interaction and Language Rating Scale (Girolametto et al., 2000). However, these measures were generally developed for students without additional support needs in mainstream settings and may not capture the potential variances unique to teaching children with disabilities, including the requirement to address a wider range of learning needs as highlighted by researchers examining inclusive classrooms (Guo et al., 2013).

For example, Easterbrooks et al. (2010) used the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO; Smith et al., 2002) with children with additional support needs. The ELLCO is a tool designed to observe and rate pedagogies and practices related to literacy in the classroom (Smith et al., 2002). The authors used the ELLCO to explore the quality of literacy environments in 18 specialist classrooms for 40 children aged 3–6 years who were deaf and hard of hearing (DHH). They also examined the relationship between the quality of literacy environment and the children’s growth in emergent literacy skills. The findings revealed significant variation across classrooms and a lack of a strong relationship between the dimensions used to assess the quality of classroom environments using the ELLCO and the children’s emergent literacy skills.

No published studies could be located that have specifically examined the classroom literacy environments of specialist classrooms that cater for children on the autism spectrum. However, there is a small but growing body of literature exploring effective educational interventions for supporting literacy learning in children on the autism spectrum (Alresheed et al., 2018; Bailey & Arciuli, 2020; Hudson et al., 2017). For these interventions to translate into classroom practice, there must be reliable methods of implementing and measuring these practices in real-life classroom settings. As MacAulay (1990) explained, the classroom environment, the teacher and their methods, and students’ interactions with and perception of these factors, can have important impacts on learning outcomes. Teachers play a critical role in supporting children’s early literacy development and need to tailor learning experiences to children’s strengths and cater for particular vulnerabilities. Children on the autism spectrum are likely to benefit from many of the same rich instructional practices that support literacy learning in children with no additional support needs (Westerveld et al., 2016). However, due to the core and commonly co-occurring features of autism, there may be some aspects of the literacy environment that require differentiation (see Westerveld & Paynter, 2021). For instance, children may be hypo- or hypersensitive to sensory input (e.g. visual clutter) as indicated in the diagnostic criteria for autism (APA, 2013), and as such, sensory features of the environment may affect children’s engagement and learning. Second, executive functioning difficulties such as inattention and impulse control (Geurts et al., 2014) may be exacerbated by distractions in the environment such as the presence of preferable items or sensory distractions.

Thus, investigation into the literacy environments and practices that support literacy learning for children on the autism spectrum is clearly important. As there are currently no tools that have been developed to observe the quality of the classroom literacy environments that take the unique strengths and challenges of children on the spectrum into account, the current study used the ELLCO Pre-K tool (Smith et al., 2008) to guide observations, combined with stimulated recall and semi-structured teacher interviews to explore the classroom environments and teacher practices that are used to support children on the spectrum in two specialist schools. The findings of this study provide an initial platform for the development of a tool for measuring the quality of the literacy environment in these settings.

Method

We collected qualitative data to explore the literacy environments and practices employed in specialist schools for children on the spectrum to better understand these specific classroom contexts. Ethics permission was granted (GU ref no: 2018/814). All participants provided signed, informed consent to participate.

Participants

Participants included 10 teachers from two primary schools for children on the spectrum, Creekwood School in Queensland (n = 2) and Wodehouse School in New South Wales (n = 8) who work closely with the researchers on broader research in this area. Teachers at both schools were invited to participate by the school leadership team. The participants and the contexts of their individual classrooms (all names are pseudonyms) are listed in the Appendix. Creekwood School supports students to access and engage with the national curriculum through strengths-based programming. The student cohort has a primary diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder; some of whom may also have an intellectual disability. Enrolment at the school is contingent on medical reports referencing assessment against formally recognised criteria, such as those in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM-5] (APA, 2013) or the International Classification of Diseases [ICD-10] (World Health Organization, 1992). Creekwood School supports students to access and engage with the national curriculum through a safe and inclusive, autism friendly learning environment with programmes supported by Allied Health professionals, aimed at achieving personalised learning goals and academic progression. Wodehouse School is a specialist school for students with a primary diagnosis of autism and takes an individualised, holistic and collaborative approach to supporting the diverse learning needs of students. Most students are diagnosed with level 3 autism (i.e. requiring intensive additional support) and would meet criteria for an intellectual disability (i.e. significant adaptive and intellectual functioning impairments typically standard score <70 on both on standardised measures) as per current diagnostic criteria (APA, 2013). Diagnosis is most frequently made by a multi-disciplinary team, including a paediatrician and psychologist, against DSM-5 criteria. Wodehouse School offers students the opportunity to engage with the national curriculum, differentiating content and outcomes based on individual student needs. Speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and music therapy are highly integrated within the school programme with a focus on student motivation, engagement, and participation in all aspects of the school day.

Procedure

Data collection with each participating teacher involved two stages: a classroom observation and a follow-up stimulated recall and semi-structured interview.

Classroom observation

Observational data about classroom literacy pedagogies and practices were gathered using sections of the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO) Pre-K tool (Smith et al., 2008). Observations lasted between 30 and 90 minutes and were conducted at various times of day based on what was most convenient for each participating teacher. As a result, some literacy practices were not observed, however the teachers were instead asked about unobserved practices during the follow-up interviews. Photographs of literacy teaching and learning were also taken for use in the follow-up stimulated recall interviews. The ELLCO Pre-K tool was chosen as it aligned more closely with the students’ level of oral language and literacy skills than the K-3 tool, with many of the students attending the classrooms showing limited ability to use read and write conventionally. The tool contains 19 items divided into five sections: classroom structure (items 1–4), curriculum (items 5–7), the language environment (items 8–11), books and book reading (items 12–16), and print and early writing (items 17–19). For this study, items 9–19 were observed, including for example efforts to build vocabulary, phonological awareness, organisation of the book area, approaches and quality of book reading, support for children’s writing and early writing environment. As the study was conducted in specialist schools for children on the spectrum and the aim of our study was to explore (rather than rate) current literacy practices, the rubric element of the tool was not used. Qualitative observer comments were recorded under each literacy element within the tool.

Stimulated recall interviews

Following classroom observation, a stimulated recall and semi-structured interview was conducted with each teacher. Stimulated recall involves interviewees reflecting verbally on their actions and thought processes during an event, based on stimuli such as photographs, audio or video recordings (Denley & Bishop, 2010). The purpose of using stimuli is to enable the interviewee to relive and recall the specifics of an event with as much accuracy as possible (Bloom, 1953). In the current study, the interviewees were shown pictures of literacy events in their classroom and asked what opportunities for literacy learning they had intended during that activity. Further questions were adapted from the interview section of the ELLCO Pre-K tool as follows:

• What is the current curriculum topic or theme that you are working on in your classroom?

• How often do you typically change the materials, displays, or organisation of your classroom?

• Were the children familiar with the book you read today? (Why did you select this book?)

• Do you use any particular methods or programme for helping children to become readers and writers?

Data analysis

The observational notes on the ELLCO and the interview data were collated and analysed using an inductive thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to draw out practices used by the teachers and features of the classroom literacy environment and to develop a coding template (King, 2012). The template was refined as the interview transcripts were read and coded. Use of a coding template enabled a consistent approach to coding by the research team (King, 2012). The resulting codes were cross-checked by two members of the research team to ensure reliability and consensus. Once all data were coded, the teachers’ responses were sorted and collated into relevant themes (Braun & Clarke, 2012).

Findings

Several themes were identified as outlined by illustrated extracts below.

Supporting language development

Teachers at both schools were observed using strategies to support language development. They modelled phrases like, ‘What do you want? I want…’, and used verbal prompts, such as ‘Do you want to ask their name?’ to engage children in verbal interaction, scaffold their use of language, and practice their oral language skills. Activities such as breaking down words to focus on initial sounds were used to build phonemic awareness while also introducing new words and building vocabulary. All attempts by children to use oral language, including those with complex communication needs, were given positive reinforcement by the teachers.

Developing literacy skills

Teachers spoke extensively about developing children’s foundational literacy knowledge and skills. Specific literacy elements mentioned included emergent literacy skills (e.g. print concept awareness, alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness), word reading (phonics and sight words), writing, oral language, the use of visual information to support comprehension, and literacy assessment. To develop emergent literacy skills, some teachers spoke of how they immersed children in book reading to develop a love of reading books. For example, Annabel at Creekwood School said, ‘I’ve been introducing them to a lot of books because I think if they get that love of stories, then and the vocabulary and everything in the stories, then we go further than we would have without it’.

Charlotte at Wodehouse School focused on introducing children to basic concepts about print like orientation and directionality so that they understood how printed language works. She said: ‘In terms of their literacy, they’re [the children] still at that point where they’re learning to hold a book and orientate it the right way and turn the pages. And some of them still require help to do that’.

Others were teaching children the letters of the alphabet and their corresponding sounds, progressing slowly, and embedding opportunities for revision. As Kimberley said:

‘… at the moment we're obviously mixing the sounds because it's in revision. I think we got through that class, got through 12 sounds this year, which is pretty good. We just spent two weeks or so on a sound’.

The development of handwriting skills was also a focus across both schools. These skills were emergent as evident in the following transcript (Rhiannon):

So, we try … I've been trying with this particular group to do as much handwriting as possible in every lesson, to be fair. Some of that might be just circling a picture to identify a character, some of it is around name writing. Today's was around letter tracing and writing, forming the letters of their names.

It was clear that the teaching of basic reading and writing skills was a focus at both schools and that active and innovative ways of doing so were paramount to maintain children’s engagement.

Whole school literacy programmes

Whole school programmes were used to guide teaching in both schools. Creekwood has created its own literacy programme, as noted by Annabel, a mid-career teacher in the school, who stated, ‘Yes. So we’ve started doing this whole Creekwood School Program’.

In contrast, Wodehouse used the Four Blocks literacy framework in conjunction with the InitiaLit programme. Rhiannon, a teacher in the school described how the framework was used:

… it has a theme that sort of sits at the bottom of it, but all of that working with words and the shared storybooks and all of that, it doesn't necessarily have to be around that theme. (…) So, whilst we have this English program that overrides, I think what we're seeing more now is that program is actually sitting across all of our KLAs in some shape or form, yeah? (…) So, I think we all follow the program.

Kimberley focused on the InitiaLit programme suggesting that it was the main influence on teaching. She said: ‘Honestly, we have been using the InitiaLit stuff, but that’s more around our sounds and our words and those sorts of things. (…) But InitiaLit’s probably the main program, if you like, that has influenced’.

Whole school literacy programmes had a place in both schools and appeared to inform classroom programmes. Some teachers at Wodehouse viewed their school literacy programme as influencing the teaching of all key learning areas.

Topics and themes

Topics and themes were also used heavily in literacy teaching and learning, in most cases as a way of supporting children’s engagement. Some examples of themes included Aussie authors, superheroes and fairytales. Kayleigh at Creekwood explained how she came to develop a fairytale unit called Once Upon a Time:

So, we are currently focusing on a unit called Once Upon a Time, which I’ve created to focus on fairy tales, classic fairy tales. And this happened because book week I came as Snow White and none of them knew who I was. So, I was absolutely heartbroken but straight away inspired to change that.

At Wodehouse, there was a scope and sequence of themes across the school. Rhiannon explained

‘… in order to not continually read the children the same book every year, so you’re not doing Hungry Caterpillar five times before you’re eight, we do have a scope and sequence that does have a theme’. Selected topics and themes were built on children’s interests, primarily to promote engagement. The way that curriculum content across key learning areas was integrated within these topics, whilst teaching was individualised, is further examined in the following section.

Planning and teaching for children on the spectrum

Teachers were observed using a range of teaching strategies when planning and teaching. Differentiation was the most common strategy used. This was noted in observations when children were given diverse writing implements based on their individual capability. In terms of support, some children were given hand-over-hand assistance, while others were assisted with correct pencil grip or with the fine motor skills required for making playdough letters. Samantha provided another example, demonstrating teachers’ capacity to adapt activities for individual strengths:

But often for most of my other literacy activities, they're on such different levels that there will be some in printed form, some on their individual computers, some on the interactive board. It just depends on what they're going to focus best with.

The importance of differentiation was also raised in the interviews with Kimberley framing it in terms of individualisation:

Obviously everything's so individualised here. No two children in one class are using the same systems and all of that sort of stuff. That's tricky, but it's so good at the same time. I think the need for individualisation while still doing a whole class and whole school program is pretty tricky but well worth it.

Another prevalent strategy was the incorporation of technology in literacy teaching. Educators acknowledged the utility of technology as a teaching tool, mentioning the high levels of engagement displayed by children across a range of technology-based activities, from eBook reading to PowerPoint presentations and interactive whiteboard exercises. Some, like Samantha, saw the variety of technology used as important in promoting engagement, ‘And then, yeah, I think also having the multimedia, it helps a lot as well. So a mixture of me talking, having a video, having a game, having all of those different sorts of mediums’. For others, it was a teaching tool. Kayleigh explained, ‘And we do have a focus word every day that they do through an interactive PowerPoint and then we make a sentence with it’.

Some activities involved the use of commercial programmes such as Edge-a-touch and Storyline Online, with Annabel explaining their appeal to children, ‘They respond a lot to the visual. They’re very visual, so we have a program called Storyline Online… And there’s people reading the story to them…’ Some teachers, however, tailored their own eBooks for children’s use as Leigh pointed out:

So, our kids have enjoyed the stories because we make our own eBooks. So, with sounds and animations, which really helps them to engage with the texts. And yeah, with music, so you saw today with the Possum Magic there was the song. And when we've read the book previously, we've got a whole eBook that we would take them through which went through all the different cities.

Collaborative planning and teaching with teachers and other staff including specialists was important to ensure optimal support for children in their learning and engagement. Such collaboration was described by Martin as a partnership with the speech therapist: ‘I work in conjunction with our speech therapist, who’s really good. And just working collaboratively with her has kind of got us to where we are now’. Charlotte described it as more of a briefing session ‘So at the end of each day we have a team meeting. We go through the lessons and that’s been a good opportunity to talk about how the kids have gone on each lesson throughout the day’. These briefing sessions extended from 1 year to the next with Kimberley stating, ‘But in terms of working with word stuff, we’ll have a big hand-over with the next teacher and show them where they’re at in terms of the sounds we’ve done or any other activities’.

Others like Kayleigh described it as also a professional learning opportunity:

So the literacy program, they actually come in, the OT and speech therapist, they come in and do a focused session with them each week. Which is great for myself and the ESO to witness what skills they're building as well, so we can do the same thing.

Differentiation, the use of technology, and collaboration appeared to be key strategies to support the learning of children. In particular, the tailoring of strategies to build on strengths and address learning needs was critical.

Motivation and engagement

One of the most critical roles for teachers was engaging and motivating children. As Martin expounded, ‘And I think once you’ve found a way to engage them, then the learning can really start to take place. Without that solid foundation, then you’re fighting a losing battle’.

The teachers were observed engaging children through a range of activities such as clapping syllables to build phonological awareness and playing bingo or tossing water balloons at sight words. Rhiannon further explained:

… you see water balloons being thrown at sight words because it's around motivation for our guys. It's the hardest thing. And you know yourself when you're motivated and interested, you tend to learn better. You're probably more likely to retain the information. … So, I think if you're actively involved, you tend to remember it. Whereas, if you're just sitting and listening to instruction or listening the whole time, you're less … And I think that's true of us as well.

A common method to engage children was intimately knowing their interests and building age-appropriate activities based on those interests. In the following excerpt, Samantha provides an example:

And so, we had to work according to their interests… when you're clapping at the syllables? We couldn't do clapping at the syllables, we had to do dabbing because they loved Fortnight, and that was a dance move from the game, you know? So like, all these little adaptations. We'd have to insert music from their favorite games while they were doing a literacy worksheet.

She goes on to explain that knowing their interests is also important when selecting texts. Samantha observed, ‘So you know, you give them really childish texts, they’re just not going to engage. They will leave the room, we’ll see behaviour’.

A variety of strategies were employed when reading texts to further maintain children’s interest. These included the use of expressive voice, engaging character voices, and changes to the volume and/or fluency of reading. Some teachers integrated music and dance actions alongside stories, and/or used food props and follow-up activities related to the story content.

Active learning experiences were also employed to engage children in writing, such as making letters with playdough, tracing letters, writing names and using sentence starters. Kayleigh commented that sustaining engagement was a constant challenge:

So, we're constantly just trying to build their literacy skills as much as we can, and keep it fun and hands-on and engaging. Because the minute you don't, that's when they're disengaged. And so, yeah, we've got to keep it really, really fun and hands-on for them.

Engagement was highly valued as an indicator of successful literacy learning. Some teachers described maintaining engagement and motivation as a challenge, particularly for children on the spectrum, while others expressed engagement as an important consideration for all learners – neurotypical and neurodiverse people, including adults as well as children.

Cross-curricular teaching and learning

Teaching curriculum areas and competencies together in an integrated way appeared important to many teachers. This was done in a variety of ways. For example, Rhiannon described her approach:

Which is why you might be doing a morning meeting and it's maths based. But you're still looking at the sounds in someone's name. Or you might be doing lots of writing across the day. You might be tracing numbers, but you're still practicing the skill of writing

Samantha had an alternative approach integrating curriculum through drama. She explained:

… We've kind of fused it all together with drama. … I've already created a script, and then I'm going to get everyone to personalise it. So then according to their characters, they can go in, change the words, have a play, and then we're going to try and act it out next.

Curriculum integration was further extended by Annabel in a unit she taught on ‘How we grow and change’. She commented, ‘I try and incorporate all the maths and everything, math skills, all things. Like I said, I like the whole integrated with everything. We’re not just teaching this, it’s integrated into everything we do’. This notion was further extrapolated by Kimberley who embedded competencies in real-life activities, with opportunities to practice life skills further by way of community excursions. She explained, ‘Then we’re also running a theme of shopping as part of history, science and geography. So we go out, we were going to Caltex, we go to Coles and we go to our tuck shop in the school’. The idea that learning and teaching is integrated for children on the spectrum and not presented in discrete curriculum areas seemed common across schools.

Creative teaching strategies

Many teachers described a range of creative teaching strategies used to facilitate learning and engagement among children, most commonly dramatic play and interactive literacy games. These strategies were seen as supporting motivation and engagement and promoting effective learning. Kimberley outlined how dramatic play was used in her class:

We’ve done this with a lot of books, we make a prop box. We can pretty much act out the story as well. With Alexander's Outing, we have the duck, we have a tube. We'll go and get water and I've got all different things and we fill it up and we throw in a sandwich, like a toy sandwich and things like that. We've done that with shopping as well. I don't know if you've ever read The Shopping Basket where Steven goes to the shop … and he buys all the things. We actually have the five oranges, the four bananas. We've got a basket and the kids put it in and we count. We have them dress up as Steven's mom. We do a lot of reenacting to try and make it more meaningful.

For others, games were used to teach social skills. Kayleigh elaborated, ‘So for us today, that bingo game, there were many skills that we had in there, turn-taking and waiting and negotiating’. She went on to explain how games also reinforced and extended learning, ‘And so having games like this is really good because they can look at each other’s boards and think about different words that they might not be familiar with’.

Teachers shared using multiple methods or strategies to teach the same content. Leigh explained, ‘So, I guess with our program, I guess we’ve kind of got to think a little bit creatively about how we can use the things that they enjoy and to link it into the curriculum’. These strategies often incorporated multimedia. Samantha said, ‘And then, yeah, I think also having the multimedia, it helps a lot as well. So a mixture of me talking, having a video, having a game, having all of those different sorts of mediums’.

The importance of using creative pedagogies was summed up well by two teachers. Kimberley, situated children as central to decision-making when she said, ‘I’ve been trying to experiment with different ways to find what’s best for the student’. Annabel, described the openness and flexibility needed when making pedagogical decisions in her comment, ‘And so I still think as a good teacher, you take the good from lots of things’.

Literacy environment

Annabel’s classroom at Creekwood School had books stored within easy reach of children. Classrooms at Wodehouse were observed to have books and writing implements stored out of reach in locked cupboards or on high shelves. Leigh explained that

So, we really have to be careful what we have out, which is kind of sad because we can’t decorate the room, say as much, because I mean, you saw [child] probably today grabbing the Blu Tack from the things that were stuck on the wall. And then, anything around, she’ll grab or throw. So, yeah, we kind of have to keep it pretty minimalist in there because of her clearing behaviours. And also sensory.

Similarly, Rhiannon commented:

Some of the classes, the children would tear the books, chew on the books, throw the books at people or hit themselves with the book. (…) Free access to books is tricky because of that sensory stuff that goes on with our guys. We've got some beautiful books, and most of them are … especially lift the flap and all of those ones, they get damaged pretty quickly.

In response, Wodehouse School (as mentioned earlier) had converted several popular children’s books into an interactive e-book format involving music, animation and movement as well as text. These e-books were projected onto the wall of the classroom to support children’s engagement with books.

How the environment and classroom resources were organised was also highlighted as a critical aspect of supporting children’s literacy development. At Wodehouse School, Rhiannon stated ‘… I think with the big windows and the regular visual supports that we need, some labels around the place, I think it’s probably the way it looks all the time. And I think the children rely on that’. Kayleigh, at Creekwood School explained how materials and resources for children were organised in drawers: ‘So each of the drawers, Sensory Snake, we try to keep sensory. Learning Lion is usually the learning activities, and then Happy Hippos, usually are fast finishing things’. It was observed that environmental print in classrooms was primarily teacher generated.

Discussion

The findings of this study brought out several key themes: Developing Literacy Skills; Whole School Literacy Programmes; Topics and Themes; Planning and Teaching for Children on the Spectrum; Motivation and Engagement; Cross-Curricular Teaching and Learning; Creative Teaching Strategies; and the Literacy Environment. There was a clear focus on language development and foundational literacy skills across the early years with teachers at both schools supporting children’s language development through modelling, scaffolding, prompting and positive reinforcement. Phonological and phonemic awareness were a strong focus in the observational data with teachers using activities focusing on initial sounds and clapping syllables along with vocabulary building. In terms of foundational literacy skills, strategies used reflected the diversity among the children with some teachers developing early word reading skills (phonics and sight words), and using visual information to support comprehension, whereas others were introducing children to basic concepts about print such as orientation and directionality. Visual supports have been shown to be effective in increasing task independence for children with disabilities and are classified as an evidence-based practice in autism (Steinbrenner et al., 2020). The development of emergent handwriting skills was also a focus across both schools. The classroom literacy programmes were also informed more broadly by the whole school approaches to literacy learning.

Differentiation for individual children and collaboration with other teachers and support staff were key strategies used by all teachers to support the literacy learning of children. In particular, the differentiation of teaching strategies and content to build on strengths and address learning needs for individual children was important. Teachers reported using multiple methods and strategies to teach content differentiating in terms of process for individual children. Engaging and motivating children was critical and was seen as a challenge by some teachers when working with children on the spectrum. However, all teachers appeared highly skilled at maintaining engagement through expressive voices, use of props, and active learning experiences. Many teachers used highly creative teaching strategies to support learning and maintain engagement in literacy activities such as dramatic play and interactive games. Topics and themes were also used extensively in literacy teaching and learning to build on children’s interests and support engagement. Teachers also worked collaboratively in planning and teaching including collaboration with specialist support staff such as speech and language therapists who were seen as a vital part of the team in supporting children’s learning. Many of the teachers used technology extensively with the children; one innovative practice was the use of school-created e-books at Wodehouse School. The use of technology in this way is consistent with technology-aided interventions established as an evidence-based practice in autism (Steinbrenner et al., 2020)

Exploring the classroom literacy environment using the ELLCO

As previously discussed, the purpose of this research was to explore (rather than rate) the quality of the literacy environments in the classrooms. For this reason, the rubric element of the ELLCO rating scales was not used. Instead, open-ended observational notes were used in conjunction with the ELLCO rating scales. The process of integrating the observational and interview data highlighted the need for a tool specifically designed to capture the classroom literacy environment in specialist classrooms settings. Many of the teaching strategies observed in this study would have been labelled either ‘inadequate’ or ‘deficient’ by the tool, however, were appropriate in the context of the classrooms observed.

Most classrooms had books locked in cupboards or on high shelves out of reach; only Annabel’s classroom at Creekwood School was observed to store books within easy reach of children. While this would be assessed as ‘deficient’ on the ELLCO rating scale, several teachers at Wodehouse School explained that many of the children in their context see books as sensory items and will readily rip, throw, or chew on them. Keeping the books out of sight when not in use protects the books and supports the children to engage more fully in their current learning. Wodehouse School had creatively converted several popular children’s books into an interactive e-book format involving music, animation and movement as well as the text. These e-books were projected onto the wall of the classroom to support children’s ability to engage with the story. This evidence-based supplementary practice, however, was not captured by the ELLCO, limiting the scope of valuable practices that could be evaluated with the tool in its intended form.

Children used diverse writing implements based on their individual needs, including pencils, marker pens, and personal digital devices. In most of the classrooms, however, these were also stored out of reach for similar reasons to the books. Some teachers were observed to incorporate minimal or no writing instruction which would also be labelled as deficient practice on the ELLCO. More formalised writing instruction, however, would have been inappropriate for these children’s current needs as they were emerging in their writing abilities. Instead, they needed the opportunity to explore a range of writing tools and surfaces (Erickson & Koppenhaver, 2020). Similarly, examples of print were also primarily teacher generated, again reflecting the emergent writing skills of many of the children.

Limitations and future research

This research addresses an important gap in the literature of exploring the classroom literacy environments in autism-specific settings. While this provided an important contribution, it is important to acknowledge that the findings only describe the environments and practices in two school settings. Furthermore, only two teachers were included from Creekwood School which may not have provided a representative picture of the school’s practices as a whole. However, our intent was not to compare or contrast. Rather we wanted to investigate the diversity of practices and explore whether using a tool such as the ELLCO to guide observations in conjunction with a stimulated recall interview would capture this breadth. We selected the ELLCO from those tools with face validity for evaluating the classroom literacy environment developed for children with typical development and elected to be specific to literacy rather than the population and setting of interest. An alternative approach, which we suggest for future research is to consider broader autism measures of classroom quality (e.g., as described in Pearl et al., 2018; see also Professional Development in Autism Center, 2008) and evaluate the extent to which these capture literacy practices.

Implications and conclusion

In this study, we examined the classroom literacy environment in two specialist classrooms catering for children on the autism spectrum. The findings highlighted the strong focus on language development and foundational literacy skills in both schools and highlighted key teacher practices including differentiation, curriculum integration, and collaborative planning and teaching. Consistent with previous research (Easterbrooks et al., 2010), our experiences highlight the limitations of quantitative measurement designed for mainstream, typical development, and the need for more nuanced understandings of specialist environments for children with additional support needs. We demonstrated the potential utility of a tool such as the ELLCO in guiding observations when augmented by stimulated recall interviews that enable the richness of practices to be explored and to understand the specific individual and contextual factors influencing the environment. This dual-process approach was more able to capture the creative incorporation of evidence-based practices beyond the ELLCO including use of visual supports and technology-aided intervention using e-book and projections of books onto walls, fitting with children’s abilities and preferences. These novel ways to promote literacy in a specialist environment may also benefit broader student groups or inclusive settings by providing additional ideas for teachers to engage a wider range of learners through incorporation of such strategies in their learning environments. Future research could extend this work through supporting communities of practice across educational settings to share unique ideas and perspectives from autism-specific settings to inclusive settings and vice versa to reach the broadest range of learners.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge funding from the Queensland University of Technology and thank the teachers and school leaders who facilitated and participated in the research. We also acknowledge the contribution of research assistance from Elizabeth Pink and Clare Harris.

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: This work was supported by the Queensland University of Technology.

ORCID iDs

Sue Walker

Sally Clendon

Jessica Paynter

Beverley Fluckiger

Roslyn Sullivan

Marleen Westerveld

Note

Appendix

School	Teacher	Age range of children	Context of classroom
Creekwood School	Kayleigh	Year one (5–7)	Seven students (all boys); two teachers; some ability to read and write conventionally
Creekwood School	Annabel	Year two (6–8)	Nine students (seven boys, one girl); two teachers; conventional literacy skills
Wodehouse School	Kimberley	5–7	Five students (all boys); some ability to read and write conventionally
	Martin	8–10	Three students; high support needs; some ability to read and write conventionally
	Natalie	7–11	Six students; some with complex communication needs; some ability to read and write conventionally
	Samantha	7–11	Three students; mixed gender; mix of support needs; some ability to read and write conventionally
	Mandy	8–11	Five students; mixed gender; some ability to read and write conventionally
	Rhiannon	5–7	Four students (all boys); two teachers; some ability to read and write conventionally
	Charlotte	4–8	Four students (three boys, one girl); one teacher with two support staff; high support needs; emergent literacy abilities
	Leigh	9–13	Three students (two girls, one boy); one teacher with one-two support staff; high support needs; emergent literacy abilities

References

Alresheed

Machalicek

Sanford

Bano

(2018). Academic and related skills interventions for autism: A 20-year systematic review of single-case research. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 5(4), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-018-0141-9

Bailey

Arciuli

(2020). Reading instruction for children with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review and quality analysis. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 7(2), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-019-00185-8

Bloom

B. S.

(1953). Thought-processes in lectures and discussions. The Journal of General Education, 7(3), 160–169. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27795429

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun

Clarke

(2012). Thematic analysis. In Cooper

(Ed.), (2, pp. 57–71). Research Designs. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004

Browder

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(5), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508315054

Burch

Evangelista

(2016). Assessment and collaboration in school and child care settings. In Garro

(Ed), Early childhood assessment in school and clinical child psychology (pp. 139–160). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6349-2_7

Clifton

Y. H.

Pavonetti

L. M.

Groomes

D. A. G.

(2017). Perceptions of literacy instruction and implications for transition and employment outcomes for students with autism spectrum disorders: A qualitative study. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 83(1), 41–49.

Denley

Bishop

(2010). The potential of using stimulated recall approaches to explore teacher thinking. In Rodrigues

(Ed.), Using analytical frameworks for classroom research (pp. 127–142). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203857991

10.

Early

D. M.

Maxwell

K. L.

Burchinal

Alva

Bender

R. H.

Bryant

Cai

Clifford

R. M.

Ebanks

Griffin

J. A.

(2007). Teachers’ education, classroom quality, and young children’s academic skills: Results from seven studies of preschool programs. Child Development, 78(2), 558–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01014.x

11.

Easterbrooks

S. R.

Lederberg

A. R.

Connor

C. M.

(2010). Contributions of the emergent literacy environment to literacy outcomes for young children who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(4), 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2010.0024

12.

Erickson

K. A.

Koppenhaver

D. A.

(2020). Comprehensive literacy for all: Teaching students with significant disabilities to read and write. Brookes.

13.

Geurts

Sinzig

Booth

HappÉ

(2014). Neuropsychological heterogeneity in executive functioning in autism spectrum disorders. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 60(3), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047387714Y.0000000047

14.

Girolametto

Weitzman

Greenberg

(2000). Teacher Interaction and Language Rating Scale. Hanen Centre.

15.

Gough

P. B.

Tunmer

W. E.

(1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104

16.

Guo

Connor

C. M.

Yang

Roehrig

A. D.

Morrison

F. J.

(2012). The effects of teacher qualification, teacher self-efficacy, and classroom practices on fifth graders’ literacy outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1086/665816

17.

Guo

Sawyer

B. E.

Justice

L. M.

Kaderavek

J. N.

(2013). Quality of the literacy environment in inclusive early childhood special education classrooms. Journal of Early Intervention, 35(1), 40–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815113500343

18.

Hudson

R. F.

Sanders

E. A.

Greenway

Xie

Smith

Gasamis

Martini

Schwartz

Hackett

(2017). Effects of emergent literacy interventions for preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder. Exceptional Children, 84(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917705855

19.

Kaderavek

J. N.

Rabidoux

(2004). Interactive to independent literacy: A model for designing literacy goals for children with atypical communication. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20(3), 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560490429050

20.

Keen

Webster

Ridley

(2015). How well are children with autism spectrum disorder doing academically at school? An overview of the literature. Autism, 20(3), 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361315580962

21.

Kenny

Hattersley

Molins

Buckley

Povey

Pellicano

(2016). Which terms should be used to describe autism? Perspectives from the UK autism community. Autism, 20(4), 442–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361315588200

22.

King

(2012). Doing template analysis. In Symon

Cassell

(Eds.), Qualitative organizational research: Core methods and current challenges (pp. 77–101). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526435620.n24

23.

Kwok

E. Y.

Brown

H. M.

Smyth

R. E.

Cardy

J. O.

(2015). Meta-analysis of receptive and expressive language skills in autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 9(1), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2014.10.008

24.

MacAulay

D. J.

(1990). Classroom environment: A literature review. Educational Psychology, 10(3), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341900100305

25.

Maenner

M. J.

Shaw

K. A.

Baio

EdS1Washington

Patrick

DiRienzo

Christensen

D. L.

Wiggins

L. D.

Pettygrove

Andrews

J. G.

Lopez

Hudson

Baroud

Schwenk

White

Rosenberg

C. R.

Lee

L.-C.

Harrington

R. A.

Dietz

P. M.

(2020). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years—autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2016. MMWR. Surveillance Summaries, 69(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6904a1

26.

May

Brignell

Williams

(2020). Autism spectrum disorder prevalence in children aged 12–13 years from the longitudinal study of australian children. Autism Research, 13(5), 821–827. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2286

27.

McIntyre

N. S.

Solari

E. J.

Gonzales

J. E.

Solomon

Lerro

L. E.

Novotny

Oswald

T. M.

Mundy

P. C.

(2017). The scope and nature of reading comprehension impairments in school-aged children with higher-functioning autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(9), 2838–2860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3209-y

28.

Nation

Clarke

Wright

Williams

(2006). Patterns of reading ability in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(7), 911–919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0130-1

29.

O’Leary

K. A.

Flückiger

Paynter

Westerveld

M. F.

(2019). Parent perceptions of literacy learning of their young children on the autism spectrum in their first year of schooling. Australian Journal of Education, 63(2), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944119860639

30.

Pearl

C. E.

Vasquez

III Marino

M. T.

Wienke

Donehower

Gourwitz

Rosenberg

M. S.

Duerr

S. R.

(2018). Establishing content validity of the quality indicators for classrooms serving students with autism spectrum disorders instrument. Teacher Education and Special Education, 41(1), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416687814

31.

Professional Development, and Autism Center . (2008). PDA program assessment. PDA Center at University of Washington.

32.

Psychiatric Association, American . (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

33.

Rajda

George

N. M.

(2009). The effect of education and literacy levels on health outcomes of the elderly. Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 5(2), 115–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2008.08.020

34.

Saha

(2006). Improving literacy as a means to reducing health disparities. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(8), 893–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00546.x

35.

Smith

M. W.

Brady

J. P.

Anastasopoulos

(2008). Early Language & literacy classroom observation: Pre-K tool. Paul H. Brookes.

36.

Smith

M. W.

Dickinson

D. K.

Sangeorge

Anastasopoulos

(2002). User's guide to the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation Toolkit (research ed). Brookes.

37.

Sparks

R. L.

Patton

Murdoch

(2014). Early reading success and its relationship to reading achievement and reading volume: Replication of ‘10 years later. Reading and Writing, 27(1), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9439-2

38.

Steinbrenner

J. R.

Hume

Odom

S. L.

Morin

K. L.

Nowell

S. W.

Tomaszewski

Szendrey

McIntyre

N. S.

Yücesoy-Özkan

Savage

M. N.

(2020). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with Autism. The University of North Carolina. at Chapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, National Clearinghouse on Autism Evidence and Practice Review Team https://ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/EBPReport2020.pdf

39.

Westerveld

M. F.

Paynter

(2021). Introduction to the forum: Literacy in autism - across the spectrum. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 52(1), 149–152. https://doi.org/doi:10.1044/2020_LSHSS-20-00124

40.

Westerveld

M. F.

Paynter

O'Leary

Trembath

(2018). Preschool predictors of reading ability in the first year of schooling in children with ASD. Autism Research, 11(10), 1332–1344. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1999

41.

Westerveld

M. F.

Paynter

Trembath

(2016). Reading instruction for children with ASD: Getting the story straight. Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology, 18, 80–83. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2016.1159332

42.

Wolfersberger

M. E.

Reutzel

D. R.

Sudweeks

Fawson

P. C.

(2004). Developing and validating the classroom literacy environmental profile (CLEP): A tool for examining the “print richness” of early childhood and elementary classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(2), 211–272. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3602_4

43.

World Health Organization . (1992). International statistical classification of disease and related health problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10).

Observing the c lassroom literacy environment of children on the autism spectrum in specialist classrooms

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Reading difficulties in children on the autism spectrum

The classroom literacy environment

Method

Participants

Procedure

Classroom observation

Stimulated recall interviews

Data analysis

Findings

Supporting language development

Developing literacy skills

Whole school literacy programmes

Topics and themes

Planning and teaching for children on the spectrum

Motivation and engagement

Cross-curricular teaching and learning

Creative teaching strategies

Literacy environment

Discussion

Exploring the classroom literacy environment using the ELLCO

Limitations and future research

Implications and conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Note

Appendix

References