Teachers' Perspectives on Literacy Instruction for Students with Severe Disabilities Who Use Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate teachers' perspectives on the appropriate skills and settings for literacy instruction, the factors influencing their decisions about literacy instruction, and the barriers to literacy instruction in general education classrooms. A sample of special education teachers (n = 69) of students taking the Illinois Alternate Assessment were surveyed, and results were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results indicate that teachers prefer to provide life-skills-linked literacy instruction in special education classrooms and consider student characteristics and features of the general education curriculum when making these decisions. Also, the setting had a significant effect on teachers' rankings of preferred literacy skills to teach. Teachers may not understand how to adapt literacy content or how access to literacy instruction in a variety of contexts may benefit their students with severe disabilities.

Keywords

access to the general curriculum severe disabilities literacy augmentative and alternative communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agran

Alper

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2002). Access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 27, 123–133.

Beukelman

D. R.

Mirenda

(2006). Augmentative and alternative communication, Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Billingsley

F. F.

Gallucci

Peck

C. A.

Schwartz

I. L.

Staub

(1996). “But those kids can't even do math”: An alternative conceptualization of outcomes for inclusive education. Special Education Leadership Review, 3, 43–55.

Browder

D. M.

Courtade-Little

G. R.

Wakeman

Rickelman

(2006). From sight words to emergent literacy. In Browder

Spooner

(Eds.), Teaching reading, math, and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 63–91). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.

Browder

D. M.

Minarovic

T. J.

(2000). Utilizing sight words in self-instruction training for employees with moderate mental retardation in competitive jobs. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 78–89.

Browder

D. M.

Spooner

F. H.

(2006). Teaching language arts, math, and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities, Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Browder

D. M.

Wakeman

S. Y.

Spooner

F. H.

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Algozzine

(2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392–408.

Brown

Branston

M. B.

Hamre-Nietupski

Pumpian

Certo

Gruenewald

(1979). A strategy for developing chronological-age-appropriate and functional curricular content for severely handicapped adolescents and young adults. Journal of Special Education, 13, 81–90.

Brown

Nietupski

Hamre-Nietupski

(1976). The criterion of ultimate functioning and public school services for severely handicapped students. In Thomas

M. A.

(Ed.), Hey, don't forget about me!: Education's investment in the severely, profoundly, and multiply handicapped, Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

10.

Clay

(1979). The early detection of reading difficulties, Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.

11.

Cook

Heath

Thompson

R. L.

(2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821–836.

12.

Copeland

S. R.

Keefe

E. B.

(2007). Effective literacy instruction for students with moderate or severe disabilities, Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

13.

Downing

J. E.

(2005). Teaching literacy to students with significant disabilities, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

14.

Durando

(2008). A survey on literacy instruction for students with multiple disabilities. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 102, 40–45.

15.

Dymond

S. K.

Orelove

F. P.

(2001). What constitutes effective curricula for students with severe disabilities? Exceptionality, 9, 109–122.

16.

Dymond

S. K.

Renzaglia

Gilson

C. L.

Slagor

M. T.

(2007). Defining access to the general curriculum for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 32, 1–15.

17.

Erickson

K. A.

Clendon

S. A.

(2009). Addressing the literacy demands of the curriculum for beginning readers and writers. In Soto

Zangari

(Eds.), Practically speaking: Language, literacy, and academic development for students with AAC needs (pp. 195–215). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

18.

Erickson

K. A.

Koppenhaver

D. A.

(1997). Integrated communication and literacy instruction for a child with multiple disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 12, 142–150.

19.

Ford

Davern

Schnorr

(2001). Learners with significant disabilities: Curricular relevance in an era of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 214–222.

20.

Giangreco

M. F.

Dennis

Cloninger

Edelman

Schattman

(1993). “I've counted Jon”: Transformational experiences of teachers educating students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 359–372.

21.

Halle

J. W.

Dymond

S. K.

(2008/2009). Inclusive education: A necessary prerequisite to accessing the general curriculum? Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33–34, 196–198.

22.

Hardman

M. L.

Dawson

(2008). The impact of federal policy on curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the general classroom. Preventing School Failure, 52, 5–11.

23.

Illinois State Board of Education. (2010). ISBE student assessment: Illinois Alternate Assessment (IAA). Retrieved from http://www.isbe.state.il.us/assessment/iaa.htm. Access date June 15, 2010.

24.

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.

25.

Kliewer

Biklen

(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.

26.

Kliewer

Fitzgerald

L. M.

Meyer-Mork

Hartman

English-Sand

(2004). Citizenship for all in a literate community: An ethnography of young children with significant disabilities in inclusive early childhood. Harvard Educational Review, 74, 373–403.

27.

Koppenhaver

D. A.

Hendrix

M. P.

Williams

A. R.

(2007). Toward evidence-based literacy interventions for children with severe and multiple disabilities. Seminars in Speech and Language, 28, 79–89.

28.

Light

(1997). “Let's go star fishing”: Reflections on the contexts of language learning for children who use aided AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13, 158–171.

29.

Lowrey

K. A.

Drasgow

Renzaglia

Chezan

(2007). Impact of alternate assessment on curricula for students with severe disabilities: Purpose driven or process driven? Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 244–253.

30.

Mechling

L. C.

Gast

D. L.

(2003). Multi-media instruction to teach grocery word association and store location: A study of generalization. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 62–76.

31.

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 (NIH Pub. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

32.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq.

33.

Ryndak

D. L.

Billingsley

F. F.

(2004). Access to the general curriculum. In Kennedy

C. H.

Horn

E. M.

(Eds.), Including students with severe disabilities, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

34.

Ryndak

D. L.

Moore

M. A.

Orlando

A. M.

Delano

(2008/2009). Access to the general curriculum: The mandate and role of context in research-based practice for students with extensive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33–34, 199–213.

35.

Ryndak

D. L.

Morrison

A. L.

Sommerstein

(1999). Literacy before and after inclusion in general education settings: A case study. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 24, 5–22.

36.

Sailor

Goetz

Anderson

Hunt

Gee

(1988). Research on community intensive instruction as a model for building functional, generalized skills. In Horner

R. H.

Dunlap

Koegel

R. L.

(Eds.), Generalization and maintenance: Life-style changes in applied settings (pp. 67–98). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

37.

Soto

Zangari

(2009). Practically speaking: Language, literacy, and academic development for students with AAC needs, Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

38.

Soukup

J. H.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Bashinski

S. M.

Bovaird

J. A.

(2007). Classroom variables and access to the general curriculum for students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 101–120.

39.

Spooner

Browder

D. M.

(2006). Why teach the general curriculum? In Browder

D. M.

Spooner

(Eds.), Teaching language arts, math, & science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 1–13). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

40.

Spooner

Dymond

S. K.

Smith

Kennedy

(2006). What we know and need to know about accessing the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 277–283.

41.

Turnbull

H. R.

Turnbull

A. P.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Park

(2003). A quality of life framework for special education outcomes. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 67–74.

42.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). 28th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Retrieved June 14, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2006/parts-b-c/index.html.

43.

Waugh

Gama

Alberto

(November 2009). Systematic phonics instruction for students with moderate intellectual disabilities, Paper presented at the annual conference of TASH, Pittsburgh, PA.

44.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2003). Defining mental retardation and ensuring access to the general curriculum. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 271–282.

45.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Lattin

D. L.

Lapp-Rincker

Agran

(2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle school student with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 262–272.