Communication and literacy development for adolescents with deafblindness: Teacher beliefs,learning outcomes,and instructional strategies

Abstract

For individuals with deafblindness a strong relationship exists between communication and literacy, making these critical areas of development. Definitions of literacy for this population must extend beyond traditional notions of reading and writing text to better support communication development. The beliefs teachers maintain, the learning outcomes they set, and the instructional strategies they employ might greatly impact student learning related to communication and literacy. Shared reading could provide a context where communication and literacy skills may be developed for learners with deafblindness. This qualitative study investigated how teachers used shared reading to support communication and literacy development for adolescents with congenital deafblindness. It explored how teacher beliefs about communication and literacy development influenced the learning outcomes they established and the instructional strategies they utilized during shared reading. Data were collected in three secondary classrooms through observations, interviews, and field notes. Thematic analysis was conducted for each individual case and then across cases using a cross-case analysis. For individual cases, themes related to teacher beliefs included connection between communication and literacy, and a comprehensive understanding of deafblindness. Themes related to instructional strategies included communication across multiple forms, focus on the communication process, and systematic instruction. In the discussion of the results, the instructional strategies of the Tri-Focus Framework were used to identify how communication development was supported during the literacy lessons observed. In addition, the use of systematic instruction and formative assessment provided a comprehensive approach to supporting communication and literacy skills during shared reading. Meaningful literacy activities, such as shared reading, have the potential to support communication development for individuals with congenital deafblindness. Teachers require a comprehensive understanding of the nature of deafblindness in order to effectively support an individual’s communication and literacy development.

Keywords

Communication deafblind deafblindness literacy shared reading strategies teacher beliefs

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Best

S. J.

Heller

K. W.

Bigge

J. L.

(2010). Teaching individuals with physical or multiple disabilities (6th ed.). Pearson.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

Browder

Gibbs

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Courtade

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.

Browder

D. M.

Lee

Mims

(2011). Using shared stories and individual response modes to promote comprehension and engagement in literacy for students with multiple, severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46(3), 339–351.

Browder

D. M.

Wood

Thompson

Ribuffo

(2014). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities (Document No. IC-3). Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center, University of Florida. http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/

Bruce

S. M.

Bashinski

S. M.

(2017). The tri-focus framework strategies and interprofessional collaborative practice in severe disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26, 162–180.

Bruce

S. M.

Nelson

Perez

Stutzman

Barnhill

B. A.

(2016). The state of research on communication and literacy in deafblindness. American Annals of the Deaf, 161, 424–443.

Brum

(2017). AAC supporting literacy instruction for individuals with deafblindness. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 2(12), 98–106.

Correa-Torres

S. M.

Bowen

S. K.

Furze

(2021). Educators of students who are deafblind in the United States: A snapshot of their perceived needs for teacher preparation programs. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 39(2), 175–188.

10.

Dammeyer

Ask Larsen

(2016). Communication and language profiles of children with congenital deafblindness. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 34(3), 214–224.

11.

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2011). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 1–21). Sage.

12.

Ferrell

K. A.

Bruce

Luckner

J. L.

(2014). Evidence-based practices for students with sensory impairments (Document No. IC-4). Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center, University of Florida. http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/

13.

Fisher

Flood

Lapp

Frey

(2004). Interactive read-alouds: Is there a common set of implementation practices? The Reading Teacher, 58(1), 8–17.

14.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). 20 U.S.C 1413.

15.

McKenzie

A. R.

(2009). Emergent literacy supports for students who are deaf-blind or have visual and multiple impairments: A multiple-case study. Journal of Visual Impairments & Blindness, 103, 291–302.

16.

National Center on Deaf-Blindness. (2020). The 2019 national child count of children and youth who are deaf-blind.

17.

National Center on Deaf-Blindness. (2021). Open hands, open access (OHOA): Deaf-blind intervener learning modules. https://www.nationaldb.org/products/modules/ohoa/

18.

Nelson

Bruce

S. M.

(2016). Critical issues in the lives of children and youth who are deafblind. American Annals of the Deaf, 161(4), 406–411.

19.

Parker

A. T.

Ivy

S. E.

(2014). Communication development of children with visual impairment and deafblindness: A synthesis of intervention research. In Hatton

D. D.

(Ed.), Current issues in the education of students with visual impairments (pp. 101–143). Academic Press.

20.

Rowland

(2011). Using the communication matrix to assess expressive skills in early communicators. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 32(3), 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740110394651

21.

Rubie-Davies

C. M.

Flint

McDonald

L. G.

(2012). Teacher beliefs, teacher characteristics, and school contextual factors: What are the relationships? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 270–288.

22.

Ruppar

A. L.

Gaffney

J. S.

Dymond

S. K.

(2015). Influences on teachers’ decisions about literacy for secondary students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 81(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914551739

23.

Snell

Brown

(2011). Instruction of students with severe disabilities. Pearson.

24.

Trief

Bruce

Cascella

Bruce

S. M.

(2013). A field study of a standardized tangible symbol system for learners who are visually impaired and have multiple disabilities. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 107, 108–191.

25.

van Dijk

J. P. M.

Janssen

Nelson

(2001). Deafblind children. National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness. http://nationaldb.org/vandijk11a.htm

26.

Wiseman

(2011). Interactive shared readings: Teachers and students constructing knowledge and literacy together. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 431–438.