Literacy in science is important for all students and is one component of access and progress in the general education curriculum. One barrier to science literacy for students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is the extensive amount of vocabulary involved in comprehending science content. Based on the inherent link between vocabulary knowledge and comprehension, graphic organizers (GOs) paired with explicit instruction can improve vocabulary as well as comprehension for students with disabilities. Using a multiple probe design, three students with ASD and intellectual disability were taught various scientific concepts related to convection (e.g., precipitation, condensation) via systematic instruction that included constant time delay and multiple exemplars of a teacher-directed GO. A functional relation was demonstrated between the GO with systematic instruction and students’ number of correct steps completed on the task analysis. Future research and implications for practice are discussed.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
2.
BakerS.GerstenR.ScanlonD. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 65–77.
3.
BrackenB. A.McCallumR. S. (1998). Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT). Chicago, IL: Riverside.
4.
BriganceA. H. (1999). Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills–Revised (CIBS-R). North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.
5.
BrowderD. M.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.SpoonerF.MimsP. J.BakerJ. (2009). Using time delay to teach literacy to students with severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 343–364.
6.
BrowderD. M.MinarovicT. J. (2000). Utilizing site words in self instruction and training for employees moderate mental retardation and competitive jobs. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 78–89.
7.
BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.HarrisAWakemanS. Y. (2008). A meta-analysis for teaching mathematics to individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 404–432.
8.
BrowderD. M.WakemanS. Y.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.AlgozzineB. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392–408.
9.
CarnineL.CarnineD. (2004). The interaction of reading skills and science content knowledge when teaching struggling secondary students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20, 203–218.
10.
CawleyJ. F.KahnH.TedescoA. (1989). Vocational education and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 630–634.
11.
CollinsB. C.BransonT. A.HallM. (1995). Teaching generalized reading of cooking product labels to adolescents with mental disabilities through the use of key words taught by peer tutors. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 65–75.
12.
CollinsB. C.EvansA.Creech-GallowayC.KarlJ.MillerA. (2007). Comparison of the acquisition and maintenance of the teaching functional and core content sight words in special and general education settings. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 220–233.
13.
CooperJ. O.HeronT. E.HewardW. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
DarchC.CarnineD. (1986). Teaching content area material to learning disabled students. Exceptional Children, 53, 240–246.
16.
DieboldT. J.WaldronM. B. (1988). Designing instructional formats: The effects of verbal and pictorial components on hearing impaired students’ comprehension of science concepts. American Annals of the Deaf, 133, 30–35.
17.
EngelmannS.CarnineD. (1991). Theories of instruction: Principles and applications. Eugene, OR: Association for Direct Instruction.
GardillM. C.JitendraA. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33, 2–17.
20.
GastD. L. (2010). Single-subject research in behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
GenaA.KrantzP. J.McClannahanL. E.PoulsonC. L. (1996). Training and generalization of affective behavior displayed by youth with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 291–304.
22.
GrossenB. J.CarnineD. W.RomanceN. R.VitaleM. R. (2011). Effective strategies for teaching science. In CoyneM. D.Kame’enuiE. J.CarnineD. W. (Eds.), Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (4th ed., pp. 181–212). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
23.
HartJ. E.WhalonK. J. (2008). 20 ways to promote academic engagement and communication of students with autism spectrum disorder in inclusive settings. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 116–120.
24.
HornerR. D.BaerD. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.
25.
HortonS. V.LovittT. C.BergerudD. (1990). The effectiveness of graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary students in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 12–22.
26.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004) (reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1990).
27.
JamesonJ. M.McDonnellJ.PolychronisS.RiesenT. (2008). Embedded, constant time delay instruction by peers without disabilities in general education classrooms. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 346–363.
28.
JitendraA. K.EdwardsL. L.SacksG.JacobsonL. A. (2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70, 299–322.
29.
Kame’enuiE. J.SimmonsD. C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of academic learning problems. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
30.
KimA.VaughnS.WanzekJ.WeiS. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of the research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 105–118.
31.
KluthP.Darmody-LathamJ. (2003). Beyond sight words: Literacy opportunities for students with autism. Reading Teacher, 56, 532–534.
32.
KnightV.BrowderD.AgnelloB.LeeA. (2010). Academic instruction in ELA, math, and science for students with severe disabilities (Invited manuscript). Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(7), 1–14.
33.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (1992). Science for students with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 62, 377–411.
34.
McDuffieA.YoderP.StoneW. (2005). Prelinguistic predictors of vocabulary in young children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1080–1097.
35.
NationK.ClarkeP.WrightB. J.WilliamsC. (2006). Patterns of reading ability in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 911–919.
36.
National Academy of Sciences. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
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 (on-line). Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.cfm
39.
National Research Council. (2001). Educating children with autism. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
40.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115, § 1425, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. (2002).
41.
PashlerH.BainP.BottgeB.GraesserA.KoedingerK.McDanielM.MetcalfeJ. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER 2007-2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Available from http://ncer.ed.gov
42.
RoidG. H.MillerL. J. (1997). Letier International Performance Scale–Revised. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting.
43.
RoseD.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
44.
SchenningH.KnightV.SpoonerF. (2013). Effects of structured inquiry and graphic organizers on social studies comprehension by students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7, 526–540. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2012.12.007
45.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.OkoloC. M. (2008). Science and social studies for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41, 1–24.
46.
SpoonerF.KnightV.BrowderD.JimenezB.DiBiaseW. (2011). Evaluating evidence-based practice in teaching science content to students with severe developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36, 62–75.
47.
StokesT. F.BaerD. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–368.
48.
WhalonK. J.OtaibaK. A.DelanoM. E. (2009). Evidence-based reading instruction for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24, 3–16.
49.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
50.
ZhangJ.GastD.HorvatM.DattiloJ. (1995). The effectiveness of a constant time delay procedure on teaching lifetime sports skills to adolescents with severe to profound intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 51–64.
