The purpose of this conceptual replication study was to investigate the efficacy of an early literacy intervention when it was implemented by special educators in general education classrooms with students in the class participating in the lessons. The study was conducted in 16 schools in three states. Eighty students with severe disabilities participated in the study. Students in the intervention group received Early Literacy Skills Builder (ELSB) instruction, and students in the “business-as-usual” control group received literacy instruction planned by special education teachers to address the students’ individualized education program literacy goals. Literacy assessments were conducted in five waves scheduled across the school year. Results showed that students receiving ELSB instruction made greater gains in assessed literacy skills than students in the control group. These findings provide evidence that students with severe disabilities can benefit from comprehensive emergent literacy instruction when it is implemented in general education settings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllorJ. H.MathesP. G.RobertsJ. K.JonesF. G.ChamplinT. M. (2010). Teaching students with moderate intellectual disabilities to read: An experimental examination of a comprehensive reading intervention. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 3–22.
2.
AyresK. M.LowreyK. A.DouglasK. H.SieversC. (2011). I can identify Saturn but I can’t brush my teeth: What happens when the curriculum focus for students with severe disabilities shifts. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 11–21.
3.
BakerJ. N.SpoonerF.FlowersC.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.BrowderD. M. (2010). A measure of emergent literacy skills. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 501–513. doi:10.1002/pits.20486
4.
BanduraA. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6.
BockA. K.EricksonK. A. (2015). The influence of teacher epistemology and practice on student engagement in literacy learning. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 40, 138–153. doi:10.1177/1540796915591987
7.
BonettD. G. (2012). Replication-extension studies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 409–412. doi:10.1177/0963721412459512
8.
BradfordS.ShippenM. E.AlbertoP.HouchinsD. E.FloresM. (2006). Using systematic instruction to teach decoding skills to middle school students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 333–343.
9.
BrowderD.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.CourtadeG.GibbsS.FlowersC. (2008). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an early literacy program for students with significant developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 33–52. doi:10.1177/001440290807500102
10.
BrowderD. M.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC.BakerJ. N. (2012). An evaluation of a multicomponent early literacy program for students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 237–246. doi:10.1177/074193251038730
11.
BrowderD.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.SpoonerF.MimsP. J.BakerJ. N. (2009). Using time delay to teach literacy to students with severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 343–364. doi:10.1177/001440290907500305
12.
BrowderD. M.WakemanS.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.AlgozzineB. (2006). Research on reading for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392–408. doi:10.1177/001440290607200401
CoyneM. D.CookB. G.TherrienW. J. (2016). Recommendations for replication research in special education: A framework of systematic, conceptual replications. Remedial and Special Education, 37, 244–253. doi:10.1177/0741932516648463
15.
DoablerC. T.ClarkeB.KrostyD. B.Kurtz-NelsonE.FienH.SmolkowskiK.BakerS. K. (2016). Testing the efficacy of a Tier 2 mathematics intervention: A conceptual replication study. Exceptional Children, 83, 92–110. doi:10.1177/0014402916660084
16.
DormanJ. P. (2009). Partitioning the variance in scores on classroom environment instruments. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 9, 18–31.
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 §114 Stat. 117 (2015).
21.
FlemingD.WilsonM.Ahlgrim-DelzellL. (2018). Using item response theory to describe the Nonverbal Literacy Assessment (NVLA). Psychology in the Schools, 55, 341–349. doi:10.1002/pits.22110
22.
HedgesL. V. (2007). Correcting a significance test for clustering. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32, 151–179. doi:10.3102/1076998606298040
23.
HudsonM. E.BrowderD. M.WoodL. A., (2013). Review of experimental research on academic learning by students with moderate and severe intellectual disability in general education. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(1), 17–29.
24.
HuntP. (2019). Implementing comprehensive early literacy instruction in general education classrooms: A response to Toews’ and Kurth’s call to action. Research and Practice in Severe Disabilities, 44, 147–152. doi:10.1177/1540796919862874
25.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §§1400 et seq. (2004).
26.
LemonsC. J.MrachkoA. A.KostewiczD. E.PaterraM. F. (2012). Effectiveness of decoding and phonological awareness interventions for children with Down syndrome. Exceptional Children, 79, 67–90. doi:10.1177/001440291207900104
27.
LovettM.FrijtersJ.WolfM.SteinbachK.SevcikR.MorrisR. (2017). Early intervention for children at risk for reading disabilities: The impact of grade at intervention and individual differences on intervention outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 889–914. doi:10.1037/edu0000181
28.
MacGinitieW. H.MacGinitieR. K.MariaK.DreyerL. G., (2000). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Fourth Edition, Forms S and T. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
McDonnellJ.JohnsonJ. W.PolychronisS.RiesenT.JamesonJ. M.KercherK. (2006). A comparison of one-to-one embedded instruction in general education classes with small group instruction in special education classes. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 125–138.
31.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Common Core of Data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/
32.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved from http://www.nifl.gov/earlychildhood/NELP/NELPreport.html
33.
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 (NIH Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
34.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
35.
PetersenA. (2016). Perspectives of special education teachers on general education curriculum access: Preliminary results. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 4, 19–35. doi:10.1177/1540796915604835
36.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
RubinD. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470316696
38.
RupparA. L.GaffneyJ. S.DymondS. K. (2014). Influences on teachers’ decisions about literacy for secondary students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 81, 209–226. doi:10.1177/0014402914551739
39.
SAS Institute. (2002–2012). SAS/STAT 9.4 user’s guide. Cary, NC: Author.
40.
SchaferJ. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London, UK: Chapman and Hall.
41.
SchaferJ. L.GrahamJ. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147
42.
ForesmanScott (2011). Reading Street. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
43.
SingerJ. D.WillettJ. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
44.
TimberlakeM. T. (2014). Weighing costs and benefits: Teacher interpretation and implementation of access to the general education curriculum. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 39, 83–99. doi:10.1177/1540796914544547
45.
ToewsS.KurthJ. (2019). Inclusive literacy instruction: A call to action. Research and Practice in Severe Disabilities, 44, 135–142. doi:10.1177/1540796919855373
46.
WhalonK. J.OtaibaS. A.DelanoM. E. (2009). Evidence-based reading instruction for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24, 3–16. doi:10.1177/1088357608328515
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
