Literacy instruction for students with significant intellectual disabilities traditionally emphasizes isolated skills instruction focusing on sight words and basic vocabulary. Recent research suggests these students benefit from high-quality instruction that includes comprehension and storybook reading. This study examined the effect of a technology-based universal design for learning (UDL) approach to literacy instruction, Literacy by Design (LBD), on the reading achievement of 16 students with significant intellectual disabilities in Grades K–2. The LBD approach emphasizes reading for meaning, combining UDL-scaffolded e-books and letter and word recognition software. Nine teachers received training in research-based literacy practices. Of these, five received LBD training and implemented it four to five times weekly. Controlling for initial reading achievement, the LBD group made significantly greater gains on the Woodcock–Johnson Test of Achievement III Passage Comprehension subtest. Implications for research and practice in beginning reading instruction for children with significant intellectual disabilities are discussed.
AlmasiJ. F. (2003). Teaching strategic reading processes. New York, NY: Guilford.
2.
Al OtaibaS.HospM. (2004). Service learning: Training preservice teachers to provide effective literacy instruction to students with Down syndrome. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(4), 28–35.
3.
BerkL. E.WinslerA. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning: Vygotsky and early childhood education. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
4.
BrowderD. M.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.CourtadeG.GibbsS. L.FlowersC. (2008). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an early literacy program for students with significant developmental disabilities using group randomized trial research. Exceptional Children, 75, 33–52.
BrowderD. M.WakemanS. Y.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.AlgozzineB. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392–408.
7.
ClayM. M. (2000a). Letter Identification. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
8.
ClayM. M. (2000b). Concepts About Print. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
9.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Designing learning environments that support thinking: The Jasper series as a case study. In DuffyT. M.LowyehJ.JonassenD. H. (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 9–36). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
10.
CollinsA.BrownJ. S.NewmanS. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
DaltonB.CoyneP. (2002). Developing the thinking reader technology-based instructional approach to support beginning reading in children with mental retardation (Final report to the Joseph P. Kennedy Foundation). Peabody, MA: CAST.
12.
DaltonB.PishaB.CoyneP.EagletonM.DeysherS. (2002). Engaging the text: Reciprocal teaching and questioning strategies in a scaffolded learning environment (Final report to the U.S. Office of Special Education). Peabody, MA: CAST.
13.
DaltonB.ProctorC. P. (2007). Reading as thinking: Integrating strategy instruction in a universally designed digital literacy environment. In McNamaraD. S. (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 423–442). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
DaltonB.ZephL.CoyneP.EnrightB. (2006). Literacy by Design: Creating universally designed reading environments for students with significant cognitive disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Final Report H0324D020059). Wakefield, MA: CAST.
15.
EricksonK. (2004). MEville to WEville. Roseville, MN: Ablenet.
16.
EricksonK.HanserG.HatchP.SandersE. (2009). Research-based practices for creating access to the general curriculum in reading and literacy for students with significant intellectual disabilities (Final report to the Council of Chief State School Officers, Assessing Special Education Students, State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards). Chapel Hill, NC: Center for Literacy and Disabilities Studies. Retrieved from http://www.ncksec.net/docs/notices/certified/ELA_AAS__CLDS_-Final.pdf
17.
EricksonK. A.KoppenhaverD. A. (1995). Developing a literacy program for children with severe disabilities. Reading Teacher, 48, 676–683.
HallT.MurrayE. (2009). Monitoring student’s progress towards standards in reading: A universally designed CBM system (Final Report H327BO50009). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education: Office of Special Education Programs.
20.
HedrickB. W.KatimsS. D.CarrJ. N. (1999). Implementing a multimethod, multilevel literacy program for students with mental retardation. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Delays, 14, 231–239.
21.
HoustonD.TorgesenJ. (2004). Teaching students with moderate disability to read: Insights from research. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services.
22.
HuckS. W. (2000). Reading statistics and research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Island Adventure [Computer software]. (1997). San Francisco, CA: Riverdeep.
26.
JacksonR. (2005). Curriculum access for students with low-incidence disabilities: The promise of universal design for learning. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_lowinc.html
27.
KatimsS. D. (2000). Literacy instruction for people with mental retardation: Historical highlights and contemporary analysis. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 3–15.
28.
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, 1–12.
29.
KoppenhaverD. A.ColemanP. P.KalmanS. L.YoderD. E. (1991). The implications of emergent literacy research for children with developmental disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1(1), 38–44.
30.
LuckassonR.SchalockR. L.SpitalnikD. M.SpreatS.TasséM.SnellM. E.. . . CraigE. M. (1992). Mental retardation: Definition, classification and systems of supports. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
31.
MacArthurC. A.FerrettiR. P.OkoloC. M.CavalierA. R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. Elementary School Journal, 101, 273–301.
32.
McLaughlinM. J. (1999). Access to the general education curriculum: Paperwork and procedure or redefining special education. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 12(1), 9–14.
33.
MefferdE. P.PettegrewS. B. (1997). Fostering literacy acquisition of students with developmental disabilities: Assisted reading with predictable trade books. Reading Research and Instruction, 36, 177–190.
34.
MeyerA.RoseD. H. (1998). Learning to read in the computer age. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
35.
MeyerA.RoseD. H. (2005). The future is in the margins: The role of technology and disability in educational reform. In RoseD. H.MeyerA.HitchcockC. (Eds.), The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies (pp. 13–35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
36.
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. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Development.
ProctorC. P.DaltonB.GrishamD. L. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39, 71–94.
43.
ProctorC. P.UccelliP.DaltonB.SnowC. E. (2009). Understanding depth of vocabulary online with bilingual and monolingual children. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25, 311–333.
44.
RoseD.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
45.
SkotkoB. G.KoppenhaverD. A.EricksonK. A. (2004). Parent reading behaviors and communication outcomes in girls with Rett syndrome. Exceptional Children, 70, 145–166.
46.
StrangmanN.DaltonB. (2005). Technology for struggling readers: A review of the research. In EdyburnD.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), The handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 545–569). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
47.
WehmeyerM. L.SmithS. J.PalmerS. B.DaviesD. K.StockS. E. (2004). Technology use and people with mental retardation. In GliddenL. M. (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation (Vol. 29, pp. 293–337). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
48.
WiggleWorks [Computer software]. (1996). New York, NY: Scholastic.
49.
WoodD.BrunerJ. S.RossG. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
50.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
