Historically, research exploring the literacy experiences of learners with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) has prioritized systematic, multicomponent instruction that emphasizes the development of traditional reading and writing skills. However, this approach may inadvertently facilitate literacy gatekeeping and limit opportunities for literacy learning that focuses on meaning making for students who do not demonstrate specific, conventional reading, writing, and communication skills. To explore conceptions of literacy beyond these traditional frameworks, in this interpretivist, qualitative study, we leveraged a multiliteracies framework and the concept of presumption of competence to interview 24 parents of elementary children with IDD to learn about their child’s literacy engagement, definitions of literacy, and family literacy practices. Our findings highlight how caregivers had traditional framings of literacy when describing their definition of literacy but went on to describe more expansive representations of literacy in their home literacy experiences. These activities went beyond traditional framings of literacy activities for learners with IDD and included: (a) communication and connection, (b) environmental access, (c) embracing music and the arts, and (d) culture and community. Implications for research and practice to improve literacy learning for students with IDD are discussed.
AfacanK.WilkersonK. L.RupparA. L. (2018). Multicomponent Reading intervention for students with intellectual disability. Remedial and Special Education, 39(4), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517702444
2.
AllorJ. H.MathesP. G.ChamplinT.CheathamJ. P. (2009). Research based techniques for teaching early Reading skills to students with intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44(3), 356–366.
3.
AllorJ.MathesP.RobertsJ.CheathamJ.ChamplinT. (2010). Comprehensive Reading instruction for students with intellectual disabilities: Findings from the first three years of a longitudinal study. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20482
4.
ArmstrongB. J. (2004). Boulevard of Broken Dreams [Song]. On American Idiot. Reprise.
5.
AyresK.LoweryK. A.DouglasK.SieversC. (2011). I can identify Saturn but I can't brush my teeth: What happens when focus for students with severe disabilities shifts. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46(1), 11–21.
6.
BhattacharyaK. (2017). Fundamentals of qualitative research: A practical guide. Routledge.
BockA. K.EricksonK. A. (2015). The influence of teacher epistemology and practices on student engagement in literacy learning. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(2), 138–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915591987
9.
BovedaM.AnnammaS. A. (2023). Beyond making a statement: An intersectional framing of the power and possibilities of positioning. Educational Researcher, 52(5), 306–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X231167149
10.
BrantlingerE.JimenezR.KlingnerJ.PugachM.RichardsonV. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205
11.
BrowderD. M.WakemanS. Y.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.AlgozzineB. (2006). Research on Reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200401
12.
CervettiG.DamicoJ.PearsonP. D. (2006). Multiple literacies, new literacies, and teacher education. Theory into Practice, 45(4), 378–386. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4504_12
13.
Chandler-OlcottK.KluthP. M. (2008). Mother’s voice was the main source of learning”: Parents’ role in supporting the literacy development of students with autism. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(4), 461–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960802659152
14.
CharmazK. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
15.
CopeB.KalantzisM. (Ed.) (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Routledge.
16.
CopeB.KalantzisM. (2015). The things you do to know: An introduction to the pedagogy of multiliteracies. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design (pp. 1–36). Springer.
17.
CreswellJ. W.ClarkV. P. (2011). Mixed methods research. Sage.
DoakL. (2024). ‘To start talking phonics is crazy:’ how parents understand ‘literacy’ in the lives of children with learning disabilities. Pedagogy, Culture, & Society, 32(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2021.2010121
20.
EricksonK. A. (2017). Comprehensive literacy instruction, interprofessional collaborative practice, and students with severe disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_AJSLP-15-0067
21.
FlewittR.NindM.PaylerJ. (2009). ‘If she’s left with books she’ll just eat them’: Considering inclusive multimodal literacy practices. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 9(2), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798409105587
22.
GillandersC.BarakM. (2022). In their own words: Parents’ voices about a book-provision program. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 24(4), 862-889. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687984221108267
HeathS. B. (1983). Protean shapes in literacy events: Ever-shifting oral and literate traditions. In TannenD. (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 91–117). Ablex.
25.
HuntP.McDonnellJ.CrockettM. A. (2012). Reconciling an ecological curricular framework focusing on quality of life outcomes with the development and instruction of standards-based academic goals. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 37(3), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2511/027494812804153471
26.
KeefeE. S. (2022). From detractive to democratic: The duty of teacher education to disrupt structural ableism and reimagine disability. Teachers College Record, 124(3), 115–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681221086994
27.
KeefeE. B.CopelandS. R. (2011). What is literacy? The power of a definition. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(3-4), 92–99. https://doi.org/10.2511/027494811800824507
28.
KleekampM. C. (2021). Reimaging isolated literacy classrooms as interdependent networks: Tracing rituals, repetitions, and technologies. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 70(1), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/23813377211022687
29.
KliewerC. (2008). Seeing all kids as readers: A new vision for literacy in the inclusive early childhood classroom. Brookes.
30.
KliewerC.BiklenD. (2001). School’s not really a place for “Reading”: A research synthesis of the literate lives of students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.26.1.1
31.
KliewerC.BiklenD. (2007). Enacting literacy: Local understanding, significant disability, and a new frame for educational opportunity. Teachers College Record, 109(12), 2579–2600. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810710901202
32.
KliewerC.BiklenD.Kasa-HendricksonC. (2006). Who may be literate? Disability and resistance to the cultural denial of competence. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 163–192. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043002163
33.
KoppenhaverD.ColemanP.KalmanS.YoderD. (1991). The implications of emergent literacy research for children with developmental disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0101.38
34.
KrishnanS. (2021). The role of multiliteracies in changing learning spaces and promoting self-advocacy for students with complex support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 46(2), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969211010307
35.
LynchJ.AndersonJ.AndersonA.ShapiroJ. (2006). Parents’ beliefs about young children's literacy development and parents’ literacy behaviors. Reading Psychology, 27(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710500468708
36.
MuhammadG. (2020). Cultivating Genius: An equity framework for culturally and historically responsive literacy. Scholastic.
37.
MuhammadG.MoselyL. (2021). Why we need identity and equity learning in literacy practices: Moving research, practice, and policy forward. Language Arts, 98(4), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.58680/la202131154
38.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.LeechN. L. (2007). Sampling designs in qualitative research: Making the sampling process more public. Qualitative Report, 12(2), 238–254.
39.
ParisD.AlimH. S. (Ed.) (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.
40.
PerryK. H. (2012). What is literacy? –A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1), 50–71.
41.
Purcell-GatesV.PerryK. H.BriseñoA. (2011). Analyzing literacy practice: Grounded theory to model. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(4), 439–458. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte201115256
RupparA. L. (2015). A preliminary study of the literacy experiences of adolescents with severe disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 36(4), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514558095
44.
ScarboroughH. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later Reading (dis)abilities. In NeumanS. B.DickinsonD. K. (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97–110). The Guilford Press.
45.
SenechalM.LeFevreJ. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s Reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73(2), 445–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00417
StreetB. (1993). Introduction: The new literacy studies. In StreetB. (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 1–21). Cambridge University Press.
48.
TaylorA.McDonoughK. (2021). Safeguarding the epistemic agency of intellectually disabled learners. Philosophy of Education, 77(1), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.47925/77.1.24
49.
TrainorA. A.GraueE. (2014). Evaluating rigor in qualitative methodology and research dissemination. Remedial and Special Education, 35(5), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514528100
50.
WaitollerF. R.ThoriusK. K. (Ed.) (2023). Sustaining disabled youth: Centering disability in asset pedagogies. Teachers College Press.
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.
