The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the influences on special education teachers’ decisions about literacy for their students with severe disabilities. With the use of multiple case study and grounded theory methodologies, four middle and high school special education teachers were purposefully selected to participate in interviews and videotaped observations. Transcripts and videos were analyzed in concert with documents, such as individualized education programs and teaching materials, using constant comparative analysis. Four key influences were identified that guided literacy decisions: (a) contexts; (b) beliefs about students, teaching, and learning; (c) expectations; and (d) self-efficacy. These four components form the basis for a preliminary theoretical framework of teacher decision making about literacy for students with severe disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertoP. A.FredrickL.HughesM.McIntoshL.CihakD. (2007). Components of visual literacy: Teaching logos. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 234–243. doi: 10.1177/10883576070220040501
2.
BlantonL. P.BlantonW. E.CrossL. S. (1994). An exploratory study of how general and special education teachers think and make decisions about students with special needs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 62–74. doi: 10.1177/088840649401700107
3.
BogdanR. C.BiklenS. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
4.
BooteD. (2007). Teachers’ professional discretion and the curricula. Teachers and Teaching, 12, 461–478. doi: 10.1080/13450600600644319
5.
BrantlingerE.JimenezR.KlingnerJ.PugachM.RichardsonV. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 72, 195–207.
6.
BrowderD. M.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.CourtadeG.GibbsS. L.FlowersC. (2008). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an early literacy program for students with significant developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 33–52.
7.
BrowderD. M.WakemanS. Y.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.AlgozzineB. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392–408.
8.
BrownL.LongE.Udvari-SolnerA.DavisL.VanDeventerP.AlhlgrenC. . . . JorgensenJ. (1989) The home school: Why students with severe intellectual disabilities must attend the schools of their brothers, sisters, and neighbors. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 14, 1–7.
9.
BrownL.NietupskiJ.Hamre-NietupskiS. (1976). The criterion of ultimate functioning and public school services for severely handicapped students. In ThomasM. A. (Ed.), Hey, don’t forget about me! Education’s investment in the severely, profoundly, and multiply handicapped (pp. 2–15). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Available from http://website.education.wisc.edu/~lbrown/?page_id=98
10.
ClarkC. M.PetersonP. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York, NY: Macmillan.
11.
CookB. G.TankersleyM.Harjusola-WebbS. (2008). Evidence-based special education and professional wisdom: Putting it all together. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 105–111. doi: 10.1177/1053451208321566
12.
CopelandS. R.KeefeE. B. (2007). Effective literacy instruction for students with moderate or severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
13.
CopelandS. R.KeefeE. B.CalhoonA. J.TannerW.ParkS. (2011). Preparing teachers to provide literacy instruction to all students: Faculty experiences and perceptions. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36, 126–141. doi: 10.2511/027494811800824499
14.
DowningJ. E. (2005). Teaching literacy to students with significant disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
15.
DurandoJ. (2008). A survey on literacy instruction for students with multiple disabilities. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 102, 40–45.
16.
ElbazF. (1981). The teacher’s “practical knowledge”: Report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 43–71. doi: 10.2307/1179510
17.
EricksonK. A.ClendonS. A. (2009). Addressing the literacy demands of the curriculum for beginning readers and writers. In SotoG.ZangariC. (Eds.), Practically speaking: Language, literacy, and academic development for students with AAC needs (pp. 195–216). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
18.
EricksonK. A.HattonD. (2007). Expanding understanding of emergent literacy: Empirical support for a new framework. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 10, 261–277.
19.
FangZ. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38, 47–64. doi: 10.1080/0013188960380104
20.
FergusonD. L. (1985). The ideal and the real: The working out of public policy in curricula for severely handicapped students. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 52–60. doi: 10.1177/074193258500600310
21.
GerstenR.WalkerH.DarchC. (1988). Relationship between teacher effectiveness and their tolerance for handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54, 433–438.
22.
GuessD.NoonanM. J. (1982). Curricula and instructional procedures for severely handicapped students. Focus on Exceptional Children, 14(5), 9–10.
23.
GuskeyT. R.PassaroP. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627–643. doi: 10.3102/00028312031003627
24.
HintonS. E. (1967). The outsiders. New York, NY: Puffin.
25.
HudsonM. E.TestD. W. (2011). Evaluating the evidence base of shared story reading to promote literacy for students with extensive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36, 34–45. doi: 10.2511/rpsd.36.1-2.34
26.
JacksonL.RyndakD. L.OrlandoA. M.RupparA. L.McCalebK.HalleyK. (2013, December). Changing patterns in literacy research and implications for practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of TASH, Chicago, IL.
27.
KeefeE. B.CopelandS. R. (2011). What is literacy? The power of a definition. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36, 92–99. doi: 10.2511/027494811800824507
28.
Kent-WalshJ.BingerC. (2009). Addressing the communication demands of the classroom for beginning communicators and early language users. In SotoG.ZangariC. (Eds.), Practically speaking: Language, literacy, and academic development of students with AAC needs (pp. 143–172). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
29.
KliewerC.BiklenD.Kasa-HendricksonC. (2006). Who may be literate? Disability and the resistance to the cultural denial of competence. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 163–192.
30.
McDonnellJ. (2010). Curriculum. In McDonnellJ.HardmanM. L. (Eds.), Successful transition programs: Pathways for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (pp. 63–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi: 10.4135/9781452275024.n4
31.
MorganM. F.CuskellyM.MoniK. B. (2011). Broadening the conceptualization of literacy in the lives of adults with intellectual disability. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36, 112–120.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (00-4754). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
34.
NietupskiJ.Hamre-NietupskiS.CurtinS.ShrikanthK. (1997). A review of curricular research in severe disabilities from 1976 to 1995 in six selected journals. Journal of Special Education, 31, 36–55. doi: 10.1177/002246699703100104
PajaresM. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–322. doi: 10.3102/00346543062003307
37.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38.
PelletierL. G.Seguin-LevesqueC.LegaultL. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 186–196. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.186
39.
PugachM. C. (2001). The stories we choose to tell: Fulfilling the promise of qualitative research for special education. Exceptional Children, 67, 439–453.
40.
RainforthB.KugelmassJ. W. (2003). Curriculum and instruction for all learners. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
41.
RichardsonV. (1994). The consideration of teachers’ beliefs. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Teacher change and the staff development process (pp. 90–108). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
42.
RichardsonV.AndersP. L.TidwellD.LloydC. (1991). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices in reading comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 550–586. doi: 10.3102/00028312028003559
43.
RokeachM. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
44.
RupparA. L.DymondS.K.GaffneyJ. S. (2011). Teachers’ perspectives on literacy instruction for students with severe disabilities who use augmentative and alternative communication. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36, 100–111.
45.
SotoG. (1997). Special education teacher attitudes toward AAC: Preliminary survey. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13, 186–196. doi: 10.1080/07434619712331278008
46.
SotoG.GoetzL. (1998). Self-efficacy beliefs and the education of students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 23, 134–143. doi: 10.2511/rpsd.23.2.134
47.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387–431. doi: 10.3102/00346543072003387
StakeR. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
50.
StanovichP.JordanA. (1998). Canadian teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching in heterogeneous classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 98, 221–238. doi: 10.1086/461892
51.
StoughL. M.PalmerD. J. (2003). Special thinking in special settings: A qualitative study of expert special educators. Journal of Special Education, 36, 206–222. doi: 10.1177/002246690303600402
52.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
53.
SturmJ. M.ClendonS. A. (2004). Augmentative and alternative communication, language, and literacy: Fostering the relationship. Topics in Language Disorders, 24, 76–91.
WagnerM.NewmanL.CametoR.GarzaN.LevineP. (2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
56.
WolfensbergerW. (1983). Social role valorization: A proposed new term for the principle of normalization. Mental Retardation, 21, 234–239.
