The effects of two systematic methods of phonics instruction for children with significant cognitive disability were compared. Fifty-two participants, aged 5-12 years were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: (i) a synthetic phonics instruction, (ii) an analogy phonics instruction group, and (iii) a control group. Participants in the synthetic and analogy phonics groups received twelve sessions of individual instruction. Findings suggest that for many students with significant cognitive disability systematic phonics instruction is beneficial. Further research should focus on the maintenance and generalization of phonics skills acquired by children with significant cognitive disability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgranM.AlperS.WehmeyerM.Access to general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers? Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities37123–1332002
2.
AllorJ. H.MathesP. G.RobertsJ. K.JonesF. G.ChamplinT. M.Teaching students with moderate intellectual disabilities to read: An experimental examination of a comprehensive reading interventionEducation and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities453–222010
3.
BarbettaP. M.HewardW. L.BradleyD. M.Relative effects of whole-word and phonetic-prompt error correction on the acquisition and maintenance of sight words by students with developmental disabilitiesJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis2699–1001993
4.
BradfordS.ShippenM. E.AlbertoP.HouchinsD. E.FloresM.Using systematic instruction to teach decoding skills to middle school students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities41333–3432006
5.
BrowderD. M.FallinK.DavisS.KarvonenM.to severe disabilitiesConsideration of what may influence student outcomes on alternate assessment. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities3885–1002003
6.
BrowderD.XinY.A meta-analysis and review of sight word research and its implications for teaching functional reading to individuals with moderate and severe disabilitiesThe Journal of Special Education32130–1531998
7.
ChallJ.Learning to read. The great debate1996
8.
WorthFortTX: HarcourtBrace & Company
9.
ConnersF. A.AtwellJ. A.RosenquistC. J.SlighA. C.Abilities underlying decoding differences in children with intellectual disabilityJournal of Intellectual Disability Research452001
10.
DolchE.Problems in readingGerrard Press1948
11.
DolchE. W.BloomsterM.Phonic readinessElementary School Journal38201–2051937
12.
EdmarkEdmark reading program: Word recognitionEdmark CorporationCambridge, MA1992nd ed.
13.
EhriL. C.NunesS. R.StahlS. A.WillowsD. M.Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysisReview of Educational Research71393–4472001
14.
FloresM. M.ShippenM. E.AlbertoP.CroweL.Teaching letter-sound correspondence to students with moderate intellectual disabilitiesJournal of Direct Instruction4173–1882004
15.
FlowersC.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.BrowderD.SpoonerF.Teacher's perceptions of alternate assessmentResearch and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities3081–922005
16.
FryE. B.KressJ. E.The reading teacher's book of lists (5th ed)John Wiley & SonsSan Francisco2005
17.
HooverW.GoughP. B.The simple view of reading.Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal2127–1601990
18.
Individual with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400 et seq
19.
JosephL. M.SeeryM. E.Where is the phonics? A review of the literature on the use of phonetic analysis with students with mental retardationRemedial and Special Education2588–942004
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L.Kaufman test of educational achievementAmerican Guidance ServiceCircle Pines, MN1985
22.
KliewerC.BiklenD.School's not really a place for reading”: A research synthesis of the literate lives of students with severe disabilitiesJournal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps261–122001
23.
KliewerC.LandisD.Individualizing literacy instruction for young children with moderate to severe disabilitiesExceptional Children6685–1001999
24.
MathesP. G.TorgesenJ. K.Early Interventions in Reading Level 1SRA-McGraw-HillColumbus, OH2005
National Reading Panel. National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentReport of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instructionU.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, DC0–47692000(NIH Publication No. 00-4769)
27.
NietupskiJ.NietupskiS.CurtinS.ShrikanthK.A review of curricular research in severe disabilities from 1976 to 1995 in six selected journalsThe Journal of Special Education33136–551997
28.
QuigleyS. P.McanallyP. L.RoseS.KingC. M.SchrankF AMatherN.WoodcockR. W.Reading milestonesWoodcock-Johnson III diagnosticreading batteryRiverside PublishingAustin, TX; Rolling Meadows, IL2001
29.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.The test of word reading efficiencyAustin, TX1999
30.
WagnerR.TorgesenJ.RashotteC.Comprehensive test of phonological processingAustin, TX1999
31.
WaughR. E.FredrickL. D.AlbertoP.Using simultaneous prompting to teach sounds and blending skills to students with moderate intellectual disabilitiesResearch in Developmental Disabilities301435–14472009
WilsonB.WinzerWilson Language Training M. A.The history of special education. From isolation to integrationWilson reading systemGallaudet University PressOxford, MA; Washington, D.C.1993
34.
WoodcockR. W.Woodcock language proficiency battery-revisedRiversideItsaca, IL1991
