Teaching Elementary Students With Multiple ...

Download PDF
1 downloads 0 Views 908KB Size Report
Comment
Jun 17, 2008 - Diane M. Browder, Pamela J. Mims, Fred Spooner, Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Angel Lee. University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Literacy may ...
copyright 2009 by TASH

Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 2008, Vol. 33, No. 1-2, 3-12

Teaching Elementary Students With Multiple Disabilities to Participate in Shared Stories Diane M. Browder, Pamela J. Mims, Fred Spooner, Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Angel Lee University of North Carolina at Charlotte be some cultural expectations that this population could not benefit from reading instruction (Kliewer, Biklen, & Kasa-Hendrickson, 2006). A comprehensive review of reading for this population by Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Algozzine (2006) revealed a limited research base with an overemphasis on learning sight words conducted mostly with students with moderate intellectual disabilities. However, this review also found some evidence of learning by students with severe intellectual disabilities as well as other components of reading (e.g., phonics/decoding, comprehension, fluency). Despite this lack of emphasis on literacy for students with severe disabilities, several researchers such as Erickson and Koppenhaver (1995), Kliewer and Landis (1999), and Ryndak, Morrison, and Sommerstein (1999) provided early demonstrations that this population could acquire meaningful literacy skills. Guidance for literacy instruction has also emerged in recent books (Browder & Spooner, 2006; Copeland & Keefe, 2007; Downing, 2005; Ryndak & Alper, 2003). Furthermore, an increased focus on literacy skills for this population has been influenced by the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) requirements that students be assessed annually for adequate yearly progress in reading/language arts. For students unable to participate in large-scale testing programs with accommodations, states developed alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards in language arts. One of the challenges in planning this alternate achievement is determining what outcomes to target. Recently, Browder et al. (in press) proposed a conceptual model of literacy for students with severe developmental disabilities. In this model, the two primary outcomes for literacy are enhanced quality of life through shared literature and increased independence as a reader. According to the model, throughout elementary school, every student should receive the opportunity to learn to read through comprehensive, systematic instruction that promotes essential components in learning to read such as decoding, comprehension, and vocabulary development (increased independence as a reader). Even more important, every student should have access to literature throughout their lives with adaptations as necessary, such

Literacy may be one of the most important instructional areas for enhancing quality of life for all students. One way to promote literacy skills is through engaging students in the shared reading of a story. In this study, methods for planning and implementing shared stories for three students with multiple disabilities was evaluated via a multiple probe design across participants.Because the students had few consistent responses and complex physical challenges, a team planned the literacy participation using principles of universal design for learning (UDL). Outcomes indicatethat all three students improved literacy skills and added to the literature base that shared stories can promote early literacy. Future research and implications for practical team implementation of the augmentative and alternative communication use and UDL components of representation,expression, and engagement are discussed. DESCRIPTORS: shared stories, early literacy, multiple disabilities, systematic instruction, universal design for learning Literacy may be one of the most important areas of instruction to enhance quality of life for all students. As Copeland and Keefe (2007) describe, literacy provides students with skills to increase their community participation, to become less dependent on others, to gain new knowledge, to explore new ideas, to participate in leisure pursuits, to make individual choices about learning, and to increase opportunities for employment. In recent years, there has been an unprecedented focus on literacy among American educators that has produced important research summaries such as Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read (National Institute for Literacy, 2001) and programs like the Reading First initiative (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). At first, reading initiatives seemed to bypass students with severe disabilities. Qualitative researchers found a lack of focus on reading for this population (Katims, 2000: Kliewer, 1998) and theorized that there might even Address all correspondence and reprint requests to Diane M. Browder, PhD, Department of Special Education and Child Development, The University of North Caroline at Charlotte, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223-0001. E-mail: [email protected]

3

4

Browder et al.

as having text read aloud. Most students with severe disabilities will need direct instruction in how to participate in shared readings of this literature. Shared reading, also known as read alouds, storybased lessons, or book sharing, plays an important role in the development of early language and reading for young children (Ezell & Justice, 2005). For example, research with young children who are read to daily suggests that they tend to score higher on measures of vocabulary, comprehension, and decoding (Bus, van Ijzendoorn, & Pelligrini, 1995; Coyne, Simmons, Kame'enui, & Stoolmiller, 2004; Senechal, Thomas, & Monker, 1995). Consistent exposure to read alouds with young children contributes to improved comprehension and vocabulary development (Vacca et al., 2006). Providing shared story experiences can be used to promote (a) print awareness, (b) phonological awareness, (c) alphabet knowledge, and (d) metalinguistic awareness (Justice & Kaderavek, 2002). Although most research has been with young children not identified with disabilities, shared stories also have been shown to be effective in promoting increases in communication and literacy development for young students with language impairments (Crowe, Norris, & Hoffman, 2004; Justice & Kaderavek, 2002, 2003, 2004; Justice, Kaderavek, Bowles, & Grimm, 2005; Justice & Pullen, 2003). Although the benefits of shared reading are supported in the literature, there are few examples of using shared stories with students with severe disabilities. Additionally, the methods used with young children may not be age or context appropriate for older students to acquire literacy skills. Read alouds may be a critical means for students with severe disabilities who do not become independent readers to access literature throughout their lives. However, incorporation of assistive technology, selection of age-appropriate books, and physical and cognitive adaptations of books may be needed to make them fully accessible. The use of these instructional methods may be some of the ways the shared story may vary for this population. In a search of the literature, two studies were found that used shared stories with students with severe disabilities. Skotko, Koppenhaver, and Erickson (2004) examined the effects of shared story activities with girls diagnosed with Rett Syndrome for whom intentional communication had not yet been established. The intervention included the use of augmentative communication devices and several communication strategies such as asking prediction questions. Both increase in communication and engagement with the literacy materials were found. One important aspect of this study was that the interventionist did not wait for the participant to acquire "prerequisite" communication skills but rather assumed and promoted participant understanding and expression in the context of the lessons. In a second study, Browder, Trela, and Jimenez (2007) examined the effects of having special education teach-

ers use adapted novels and a lesson plan template (task analysis) to help middle schools students with autism and moderate to severe intellectual disabilities learn to engage with grade-appropriate literature. In this study, the teachers read aloud adaptations of novels like Call of the Wild using text summaries and picture symbols. Some of the literacy skills the students acquired included locating the title, pointing to text to follow the reader, and using pictures to answer comprehension questions. Both of these studies, along with earlier work (i.e., Kliewer & Landis, 1999; Koppenhaver, 1995), illustrate the importance of the interactive nature of the literacy lesson and of finding ways for students both to access the text and to communicate about the readings. For students with complex, multiple disabilities, this accessibility can be. especially difficult. To promote access, use of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices may be of great value in improving emerging literacy and communication skills (Erickson & Koppenhaver, 1995; Snyder, Freeman-Lorentz, & McLaughlin, 1993; Stephenson & Linfoot, 1995). For students with complex intellectual and physical disabilities, simply providing AAC will not eliminate the barriers to literacy for several reasons. Teaching some students with complex disabilities to use the AAC device consistently may be an ongoing challenge. For others, even the intentionality of the student's nonverbal communication (e.g., vocalizations or eye gazing) may be unclear. Consistent observable behaviors of any type that can be used to document literacy learning may be difficult to identify. One way to address communication challenges like these is to plan for literacy instruction in a collaborative team. Collaborative teams for students with severe intellectual disabilities have been shown to be beneficial in determIning what individual supports may be necessary for students with severe disabilities (Hunt, Soto, Maier, Liboiron, & Bae, 2004). Teams may also benefit from using principles of universal design for learning (UDL) to create ways to make literacy lessons more accessible and effective (Center for Applied Special Technology, 1998). Although UDL has many applications (e.g., development of digital texts), one option is to use the principles for planning how to modify materials, response modes, and learning activities to optimize learning. For example, Spooner, Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Browder (2007) trained preservice teachers to use the three components of UDL, which are (a) representation, (b) engagement, and (c) expression. To assist teachers with developing lesson plans to be inclusive of all students, Spooner et al. defined the components of UDL and illustrated how each could be applied to a lesson that would include students with and without disabilities. These definitions were as follows: (a) representation-"modifications that can be made to classroom materials that would make them more accessible to students with disabilities (e.g., modified books, larger print, digital text)"; (b) expression"designating alternate methods of communication for

5

Participation in Shared Stories

students with limited speech (e.g., augmentative devices, computers, graphic programs)"; and (c) engagement"the use of strategies that involve students with disabilities in the learning process (e.g., providing repetition, familiarity, and opportunities to respond)" (Spooner et al., 2007, p. 2). Although participants in the study of Spooner et al. learned to create lesson plans based on UDL, a limitation was that there was no measure of their implementation or student outcomes. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate a method for planning and implementing shared stories for students with the multiple disabilities that incorporated both task analytic instruction and team planning using principles of UDL. Similar to the students in Skotko et al. (2004), the target population was students with unclear intentionality of communication and minimal responding to prior literacy lessons. Building on the work of Browder et al. (2007), a task analysis was used for teaching engagement with the shared stories, with the additional goal of developing a strategy for individualizing this task analysis to the unique characteristics of each student. For this individualization, the planning team considered the three components of representation, expression, and engagement. An additional goal was to identify specific responses for this population that could be used to document literacy progress.

Method Participantsand Setting The study took place in a special education classroom in a large urban school system in the southeastern United States. Students in this context had partial school level inclusion but not full inclusion. For example, they went to the cafeteria for lunch, attended all special programs, and enrolled in a general education music class. Most instruction, including the literacy/language arts development, took place in the self-contained class. The class had nine students, all of whom had complex, multiple disabilities including medical concerns. The classroom staff was comprised of a teacher who was

working toward licensure in special education and two paraprofessionals. Although the students' personal care routines, therapies, and medical needs required a large portion of the staff's time, the teacher was committed to having daily literacy lessons. (Note: At the time the study was conducted, the teacher was participating in a university research project on literacy.) The teacher's daily literacy lessons included reading a book aloud and prompting students to engage with the book to the largest extent possible (e.g., touching pictures, using voice output device to read a story line). Although these lessons worked well for some students in the class, others had only rare, inconsistent responses unless fully physically guided (e.g., to activate a switch). Sometimes it was difficult for the teacher to determine if the student was even aware of this guidance (e.g., unresponsive). This study was developed for these most difficult to reach students. To be eligible for the study, students had to meet three criteria: (a) few to no responses during literacy lessons, (b) inconsistent use of AAC, and (c) difficult to interpret intentionality of nonsymbolic communication such as movements and sounds. Demographic information for the three participating students is shown in Table 1. All three students were classified in their psychological evaluations as having "profound" intellectual disabilities with lQs below 20 and developmental levels below 1 year. Although psychological evaluations may fail to capture the abilities of students with complex, multiple disabilities, this information is provided here for future research replications. All three students also needed extensive support for personal care (e.g., feeding, dressing, positioning) and medical management (e.g., seizures; see Table 1). What is most relevant for educational consideration is that the students were not yet responding to shared stories, and so the benefit of their literacy instruction was unknown at best. One of the challenges in determining this benefit was identifying responses for the students to "show what they know." All assessments and interventions were conducted in the students' elementary special education classroom. The second

Table I Student Demographic Age

Gender

Diagnoses according to school records

Student 1

7

Female

Severe/profound delays- spina bifida; cranial shunts; hydrocephalus: seizures

Student 2

7

Male

Profound delays; cerebral palsy, seizures: scoliosis

Student 3

10

Male

Profound delays; cytomegalovirus; cerebral palsy: microcephaly; spastic quadriplegia- seizure disorder; hemiplegia

Student

Aids and services

Communication and literacy

Wheel chair: single switch; Inconsistent communication attempts: inconsistent response OT. PT. speech to pictures; inconsistent responding during read alouds Wheelchair; single switch: Cries when hungry or experiencing discomfort; attention to speaker OT, PT, speech only, not to object or pictures; no response to read alouds Inconsistent use of eye gaze: smiles Wheelchair: head switch: when happy; does not express OT. PT, speech discomfort: no response to pictures or read alouds

2

6

Browder et a].

author, a doctoral student in special education and a former licensed special education teacher with 7 years of experience with students with multiple disabilities, served as the interventionist. This interventionist met with the classroom teacher, a paraprofessional, a special education administrator, an occupational therapist, and at least one member of the research team to plan each student's adaptation of the task analysis. Other members of the classroom team (e.g., vision specialist, speech therapist) were invited but unavailable to participate as they were on maternity leave or had schedule conflicts. Materials Three popular elementary picture books were used for the intervention. Each book was adapted to contain the student's name as the main character in the book to increase attending to the story. The books were also adapted to contain a repeated story line for the main idea of the book and to use a surprise element (e.g., balloons, lights turning out, etc.). In addition, sensory materials and objects to go along with the story were used during each story-based lesson. Table 2 gives examples of the adaptations used for each book. Dependent Variable and Data Collection Procedures Dependent variable Because the participating students often made no responses when a book was read aloud, a task analysis was created that focused on promoting active responding and comprehension during the reading of the story (see Table 3). For each response, the observable behaviors that could count as independent correct responses were identified based on responses the students could physically make without assistance. There was a total of 16 steps in the task analysis, including three steps

BlooK

Adaptations

Repeated story line Objects used to promote meaning while reading Character name adaptation Surprise element added near end of story

repeated three times and seven other steps that only occurred once during the story lesson. The dependent variable was the number of independent student responses during the reading of the story (out of possible 16 steps). Repeated steps were scored on their first three occurrences (e.g., first three times the student's name in the story was read, with exception of the repeated story line, which was introduced one time and then scored the next three times) but occurred from three to six times in the story. Several of the steps of the task analysis targeted early comprehension (see steps with asterisks in Table 3). For example, a prediction question ("What do you think the story is about?") gave the student the opportunity to guess the book's content by indicating one of two objects. This response was considered correct if the student guessed either option as long as the student made a clear choice. Second, the use of turn taking with a repeated story line gave some indication that the student anticipated the next line of the read aloud. For example, the reader began the line (e.g., "Terrible, horrible..."), and the student used a voice output device to finish it (e.g., "...no good day!"). Finally, the student was asked at the end of the book what the story was about. In this second presentation of two objects, only one option was correct. The steps of the task analysis and definitions of independent correct responses are shown in Table 3. Although only independent responses were graphed and used in the research design, general reactions and no responses were also scored for instructional consideration. It was believed that some students might only make a reaction that could be considered improvement if previously nonresponsive during an entire story. A reaction was defined as some change in behavior state

Table 2 Adaptations Book Adaptations Table and the Terrible, Horrible, Alexander Joseph Had a Little Overcoat,Book by Simms Taback No Good, Very Bad Day, by Judith Viorst Book was shortened (pages Book was shortened (pages removed and lines were removed and lines were cut cut from text), pages were from text), pages were laminated, objects and laminated, objects and picture picture symbols were symbols were velcroed into velcroed into the text, the text, students name was students name was velcroed in as a character velcroed in as a character It was old and worn Terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day Overcoat, jacket, scarf. Gum, candy bar, cereal box, tie, balloon shoes Student's name used for main Student's name used for main character-Joseph character-Alexander When the coat was only a string, a balloon was released from a bag with a string

When the lights burned out in the story, the lights were turned off in the classroom

Dirty Birtie, by David Roberts Book was shortened (pages removed and lines were cut from text), pages were laminated, objects and picture symbols were velcroed into the text, students name was velcroed in as a character No Bertie, that's dirty Birtie! Stuffed dog, piece of candy, rubber worms and bugs Student's name used for characters throughout (e.g., Bertie's sister) When Bertie's sister dumped a bucket of bugs on Bertie, bucket of rubber bugs was dumped in front of the student

Participation in Shared Stories

Table 3 Task Analysis Used to Score Participating in the Shared Stories Step 1. Choose book to read 2. Attend to chosen book while title and author are read 3. Attends to material used to introduce the story's theme 4. Makes a prediction when asked, "What do you think this story is about?" and shown two objectsa 5. Reacts to name embedded three different times within the story within 2 seconds of hearing it read (scored first three times occurs in story)a 6. Focuses on object within 2 seconds when named in story and displayed to student (scored first three times occurs in story)ý' 7. Participates in reading by completing repeated story line using a switch; for example, "The coat was" and the switch says "old and worn" (the repeated story line was introduced one time and then scored the next three times it occurred in story)' 8-13. Steps 5-7 are repeated twice as the story is read 14. Reacts to surprise element near end of story 15. When represented with objects used for prediction and asked, "What was the story about?" chooses correct object (general story comprehension)a 16. When asked "Do you want me to read it again?" indicates yes for "read more" and no for "finished": teacher presents cards with enlarged yes/no symbols that are color cued and raised with puffy paint (green-yes: red-no)

Definition for independent correct Touches one book, holds eye gaze on one book, or reaches toward one Holds eye gaze on chosen book cover for at least 2 seconds Holds eye gaze toward material for at least 2 seconds Touches one object, holds eye gaze on one object, or reaches toward one Vocalizes, laughs, smiles, turns head toward reader, opens eyes, or lifts head Touches object, holds eye gaze on object, or reaches toward it Hits switch within 2 seconds of reading of first half of line (wait longer if student is moving toward switch until response is completed); do not score correct if hits switch randomly at other times during reading of the story Vocalizes, laughs, smiles, turns head, opens eyes, or lifts head Touches one object, holds eye gaze on one object, or reaches toward one

Touches one symbol, holds eye gaze on one symbol, or reaches toward one

a These steps were considered indicators of early comprehen-

7

the story-based lesson. A second observer (another member of the research team) observed 30% of the lessons and scored the student's responses for purposes of computing interobserver agreement. Each step was scored as independent correct (+), reaction (R), or no response (NR). A few responses could have an error (e.g., incorrect object selected) and were scored with a minus (-). Agreement was calculated by taking the number of agreements and by dividing it by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. The same second observer collected information on procedural fidelity by scoring whether the interventionist presented each step of the task analysis. Another member of the research team scored procedural fidelity during each of the planning meetings by checking whether each step of the task analysis was discussed using the components of UDL. For each of these, the number of present items was divided by the total number of items and multiplied by 100 to obtain a procedural fidelity score. Research Design A multiple probe single subject design across participants (Tawney & Gast, 1984) was used to examine the effects of individualizing a task analysis on the number of student responses in the story-based lesson. During baseline, all three students received a one-to-one read aloud of the story, and the interventionist scored each step of the task analysis. After all three students showed stable or decreasing data in the baseline phase, the students received the intervention in a staggered fashion. Once the first student began to increase independent responses (change in trend and/or level), the second student also began to receive the intervention. Once this student improved, the third student began to receive the intervention. Because the participants had shown no progress in prior literacy instruction and the study took place in the latter part of the school year, no specific mastery criteria were set. Instead, each student received intervention as soon as the prior student's data suggested a functional relationship. Once entering intervention, all three participants continued to receive the literacy sessions until the end of the school year. The intervention was implemented approximately three times per week for about 30 min per session for a total of three and a half months. A session was defined as exposure to all 16 steps of the task analysis (i.e., one complete reading of the book).

sion of the text that had just been read aloud.

like opening closed eyes, lifting or moving the head, or making a sound after being silent. Data collection While conducting the story-based lesson, the interventionist scored the student's response on each step of

Procedures Baseline The adapted books and materials indicated in Table 2 were used in baseline as well as intervention. The interventionist presented two of the three books and gave the student the opportunity to choose one (first step of task analysis). If the student made no response or an

8

Browder et al.

indistinguishable response (reaction), the interventionist said, "I'm not sure which you want. Let's read this one" and began the story. The interventionist then read each page of the book pausing to give the student the opportunity to make each response shown on the task analysis. All responses were scored immediately after the opportunity was given. During baseline, the interventionist read with animation but did not prompt or praise student responses. Intervention Intervention began by scheduling a meeting of the planning team to review the task analysis and to plan ways to increase student responding. In the meeting, the interventionist used a template that listed each step of the task analysis and the three components of UDL (i.e., representation, expression, and engagement). The team began by reviewing the baseline data. If the student had made an independent response, no further planning was conducted for that step. For steps for which there was no response or only a reaction, the team considered three ways to improve student responding. First, the interventionist asked the team, "Is there a better way to present this step (representation)?" For expression, the question addressed was, "Is there an alternative way the student could more easily make the response?" For engagement, the question was "How can this response be prompted so student learns the desired response? How can the prompt be faded so the student responds without teacher assistance? Are there other ways to get the

UDL component

student actively engaged?" In general, the team planned for the use of a least intrusive system of prompts and praise for each step correct. What needed to be individualized was the format of the prompt (e.g., using a light pen to indicate the correct choice for an eye gazer) and the student's response latency (e.g., waiting longer for a student to make the response). An example of the types of changes made is shown in Table 4. After this planning meeting, the interventionist conducted daily shared stories using the changes in the task analysis from the UDL planning. The interventionist also used systematic prompting and feedback for each step of the task analysis. If the student made no response, the interventionist would use the least intrusive prompt feasible for the student to respond and then more prompting if needed. For example, if the student did not hit the switch, the interventionist would say "show me with your switch." If no response, the interventionist would press the switch and say, "show me like this." If still no response, the interventionist would guide the motor response (hitting the switch). Some responses only leant themselves to one prompt (e.g., light cue for an eye gazer), and so this prompt would be delayed by two or more seconds across sessions. If the student made the response with or without prompting, the teacher used specific praise (e.g., "Good! You are looking at Joseph's tie."). If the student made no response after prompting and physical prompting was not feasible (e.g., eye gazer), the teacher moved on to the next step without comment. If the student began to make an

Table 4 Examples of the Team Planning for Use of UDL to Individualize the Task Analysis Examples of changes made Examples of changes made Examples of changes made for Student I for Student 2 for Student 3

Representation: Is there a better way to present this opportunity to respond so it is clearer to the student?

Displayed objects on bulletin board behind interventionist and required student to look toward board for a response

Expression: Is there an alternative way the student could respond?

Changed switch from Big Mac switch (Able Net) to Jelly Bean Switch (Able Net)

Engagement: What prompt could be used to get the student to make the response? How should it be faded?

Praised exact student response Used low lighting in the room to relax and increase engagement Before beginning lesson, "warm up" arm and head movement using music Increased wait time from 2 to 5 seconds before giving prompts

Use a light box behind the objects Presented two book options by sweeping in each book across student's full field of vision Changed switch from Big Mac switch (Able Net) to Jelly Bean Switch (Able Net)

Used low lighting in the room to reduce high tone and increase engagement Before beginning lesson, "warmed up" arm and head movement using music and practiced switch activation Used light pen and tapping to cue student to look at one of the objects or books Increased wait time from 2 to 5 seconds

Use a light box behind the objects

Hold objects vertically so student can eye gaze up or down versus left to right Moved head switch from left side of students head to the right Used low lighting in the room to reduce high tone and increase engagement Before beginning lesson, "warmed up" arm and head movement using music and practiced switch activation Used light pen and tapping to cue student to look at one of the objects or books Increased wait time from 2 to 5 seconds

9

Participation in Shared Stories

error on any step, the prompt was given immediately (see Table 4).

student responding was 97% for Student 1, 94% for Student 2, and 92% for Student 3.

Social validity Because the study was implemented by a member of the research team, the classroom teacher was asked to assess the social validity of the study. The survey questions were designed to discover the special educator's perspective of the UDL team planning process for future literacy instruction.

Student Data Student performance data are displayed in Figure 1. During baseline, Student I completed a mean of 7.3 steps of the 16-step task analysis independently, with a range from 6 to 8 steps. After intervention, the responses increased (M = 13.09, range from 12 to 15). During baseline, Student 2 completed a mean of 3 steps of the 16-step task analysis independently, with a range from I to 4 steps. After intervention, the responses increased (M = 10.2, range from 7 to 13). During baseline, Student 3 completed a mean of 2 steps of the 16-step task analysis independently, with a range from 0 to 5 steps. After intervention, the responses increased (M - 8.5, range from 6 to 11; see Figure 1). For all three students, some of the independent responses were those designated in Table 3 as indicators of early comprehension.

Results Agreement Procedural fidelity for reviewing all steps of the task analysis with all three UDL components during team planning meetings was 100%. Procedural fidelity for the interventionist was delivery of all steps of the task analysis 100%. Interobserver agreement for scoring the Intervention

Baseline

Student 1

0 0..

Student 2 Cn

5)

*1

5.)

c0

C U C ,.O

0

5)

Student 3 E

0

0 i

i

B

Sessions Figure 1. Number of correct steps of task analysis across three participants.

10

Browder et al.

Social Validity The classroom teacher participated in the planning meetings and reported in a follow-up survey that she used ideas from the planning meeting in her ongoing literacy lessons. The teacher also reported that after the study, the students were included in more classroom read alouds and seemed to enjoy them more. Additionally, the teacher reported that Student 1 and Student 2 participated more in all classroom literacy activities, and Student 3 improved in consistency of communication in general.

Discussion All three students in the current study increased their independent responses during story-based lessons. Although most of the nine students in this class were responsive to the literacy strategies being implemented as part of another study (Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade, Gibbs, & Flowers, 2008), the classroom teacher identified these three students for the current study because of their lack of response. Preliminary observations by members of the research team confirmed that the students were largely passive during read alouds and did not use AAC consistently, and their communicative intent was difficult to interpret. On the basis of these observations, it was hypothesized that one or more students might only show simple reactions (i.e., change in behavior state) as a result of the intervention, and so these reactions were scored. Instead, all three students exceeded this expectation with increased independent responses. Interestingly, the adaptations of each book alone (e.g., use of objects, repeated story lines) resulted in some responding by each student during the baseline condition. In contrast, this responding was well below the opportunities to respond and decreased across days of baseline, perhaps when the novelty of first seeing the books was past. Once the interventionist applied principles of UDL to increase engagement and taught the task analysis using systematic prompting and feedback, all students increased their independent responses. These outcomes add to the literature that shared stories that promote early literacy and communication skills for young children (Bus et al., 1995; Coyne et al., 2004; Justice & Kaderavek, 2003; Senechal et al., 1995; Vacca et al., 2006), including those with language impairments (Crowe et al., 2004; Justice et al., 2005; Justice & Kaderavek, 2002, 2003; Justice & Pullen, 2003). Shared stories also have been used in a few studies with students with severe intellectual disabilities (Browder et al., 2007; Skotko et al., 2004). An important difference in the current study is in the outcomes targeted for learning during the shared stories, which were early book awareness skills. In prior studies, the target population had more advanced communication skills, and so the learning targets were also more advanced. For ex-

ample, Ezell and Justice (2005) recommend using shared stories to develop such language skills as syntax, semantics, and pragmatics and emergent literacy skills such as print and phonological awareness. Browder et al. (2007) used shared stories to teach students with severe disabilities to point to text read and use pictures to summarize the main idea of each chapter in an adapted novel. Similar to Browder et al., students in the current study needed direct instruction to be active participants in the read aloud. In contrast, their targeted outcomes were more foundational, including skills like choosing a book and focusing on objects related to the story. The next steps for these students would be to build on the early comprehension and attention responses acquired in this study through generalization to other books and to increase the number of text-dependent responses (i.e., responses that require more specific understanding of the story's content). The use of team planning with UDL is unique for the shared story literature and provided an important strategy for ensuring that the students could participate fully in the lesson. For example, Student 1 was much more likely to move an arm to activate the switch after the prelesson warm-ups or to focus on objects when presented with a light box. Although this study was conducted within a special education class, recruiting a team to plan how a student may better participate in a read aloud has the potential for use in engaging students with severe disabilities in inclusive settings. For example, the participants in the study of Spooner et al. (2007) included teachers in general education preservice who were able to plan for students with disabilities when following a UDL model. By including the general education teacher on the team and by focusing on the three components of UDL (i.e., expression, engagement, and representation), read alouds could be planned that would benefit all students. For young students like those in this study, applying these principles might help early childhood teachers plan ways to present materials and get all students ready to respond. For older students, reading a text summary before reading aloud a portion of the chapter for a novel could make the content more accessible for all students in the class. Although the results of this study were encouraging, some limitations should be noted. First, instruction was provided in a one-to-one format. Whether in a general education or in a self-contained class, students often receive literacy in a group format. A question for future research is whether the students would be able to acquire these responses in a small group format. Prior case studies by Kliewer and Landis (1999) and Ryndak et al. (1999) suggest that small group literacy experiences with students who are nondisabled might be especially beneficial. In these groups, peers might take turns reading aloud whereas the student with disabilities is given the opportunity to engage with the story by using some of the responses shown in the task analysis

11

Participation in Shared Stories

for this study (e.g., choosing the book, "reading" a story line using AAC, predicting using an object selection). A second limitation is that the planning team process identified some AAC devices that might have been beneficial but could not be procured in the timing of the study (e.g., special voice output communication devices). A recommendation for future research is to do an AAC evaluation before beginning the investigation and procuring all necessary equipment. A third limitation is that this study took place in a self-contained setting. Results may have been different if conducted in an inclusive grade-appropriate classroom. Future research needs to be conducted in the student's grade level general education classroom to have a better understanding if the changes to the components of UDL would be beneficial to all students. A fourth limitation is that the intervention was conducted by a member of the research team rather than the classroom teacher due to some of the logistics of the context (e.g., time to implement three 1:1 read alouds). Future research should consider having the special or general education teacher serve the role of the interventionist, which might be feasible with small group instruction. A fifth limitation is the team should ideally include all members of the IEP team. In the current study, some members of the IEP team were not available. The addition of a speech language pathologist, physical therapist, and family members would have been valuable not only in planning the intervention itself but also in planning how some of the same strategies could be used throughout the student's day. Finally, maintenance measures were not conducted due to time constraints of both student absences and end of the school year. Additional measures of generalization would also strengthen this research. In the current study, students used their emerging skills across three different books that varied daily depending on which book the student selected. Collecting additional data on generalization across readers (e.g., peers, teachers, family members) and contexts (e.g., media center, home) with stakeholder input about the procedures would provide further information on both the breadth and the social validity of learning. In applying this intervention to practice, the first step would be to identify the literature being used by the general education teacher. These books can be modified as described in Table t, or the team may be able to use computer software with digitalized text for ease of access. Next, the planning team would consider how the student can indicate understanding. The task analysis from this study offers a starting point for planning what the student would be expected to do during the shared stories. By asking the questions adapted from UDL given in Table 4, the read aloud lessons can be planned in a way to be inclusive of the student with complex disabilities. When the read aloud is one to one (e.g., peer reads the book), the student may have the opportunity to make all 16 responses. When a group

format is used, the student may take a turn and make selected responses (e.g., predicting what the story will be about- "reading" the repeated story line with AAC). Progress can be monitored by scoring steps that the student performs. Although the students prompted responses or even general reactions may be scored to show progress toward the goal, independent responses indicating early comprehension can be the target as shown in this study. In conclusion, this study adds to the growing research on promoting literacy with students with severe disabilities and to the use of shared stories. Students with the most significant disabilities are underrepresented in the research on literacy. This is one of the first demonstrations of the use of shared stories with this population. Although more research is needed to build an evidence base for the use of shared stories with this population, this may be viewed as a practice with promise for engaging students with limited communication in the literature of their age group.

References Browder, D. M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G., Gibbs. S. L.,

& Flowers, C. (2008). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an early literacy program for students with significant developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 33-52. Browder, D. M., Gibbs, S., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G., Mraz, M., & Flowers, C. (2008). Literacy for students with significant cognitive disabilities-What should we teach and what should we hope to achieve? Remedial and Special Education. Prepublished June 17, 2008; 10. 117710741932508315054. Browder, D. M., & Spooner, F (Eds.) (2006). Teaching language arts, math, and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Browder, D. M., Trela, K. C., & Jimenez, B. A. (2007). Increasing participation of middle school students with significant cognitive disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,22, 206-219. Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392-408. Bus, A. G., van ljzendoorn, M. H., & Pelligrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65, 1-21. Center for Applied Special Technology [CAST]. (1998). Whatis universal design for learning? Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved June 16, 2008, from http://www.cast.org/research/udl/ index.html. Copeland, S. R., & Keefe, E. B. (Eds.) (2007). Effective literacy instruction for students with moderate or severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Coyne, M. D., Simmons, D. C., Kame'enui, E. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2004). Teaching vocabulary during shared storybook readings: An examination of differential effects. Exceptionalit'. 12, 145-162.

Crowe. L. K., Norris. J. A., & Hoffman, R R. (2004). Training caregivers to facilitate communication participation of preschool children with language impairment during storybook reading. Journalof Conmtunication Disorders,37, 177-196. Downing, J. E. (Ed.) (2005). Teaching communication skills to students with severe disabilities(2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

12

Browder et al.

Erickson, K. A., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (1995). Developing a literacy program for children with severe disabilities. Reading Teacher, 48, 676-685. Ezell, H. K., & Justice, L. M. (2005). Shared storybook reading: Building young children's language & emergent literacy skills. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Hunt, P, Soto, G., Maier, J., Liboiron, N., & Bae, S. (2004). Collaborative teaming to support preschoolers with severe disabilities who are placed in general education programs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,24, 132-142. 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 1997). Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. (2002). Using shared storybook reading to promote emergent literacy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, 8-13. Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. (2003). Topic control during shared storybook reading: Mothers and their children with language impairments. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,23, 137-140. Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. (2004). Exploring the continuum of emergent to conventional literacy: Transitioning special learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly,20, 231-236. Justice, L. M., Kaderavek, J., Bowles, R., & Grimm, K. (2005). Language impairment, parent-child shared reading, and phonological awareness: A feasibility study. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 25, 143-156. Justice, L. M.. & Pullen, P. C. (2003). Promising interventions for promoting emergent literacy skills: Three evidence-based approaches. Topics in Early ChildhoodSpecial Education,23, 99-113. Katims, D. S. (2000). Literacy instruction for people with mental retardation: Historical highlights and contemporary analysis. Educationand Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,35, 3-15. Kliewer, C. (1998). Citizenship in the literate community: An ethnography of children with Down syndrome and the written word. Exceptional Children, 64, 167-180. Kliewer, C., Biklen, D., & Kasa-Hendrickson, C. (2006). Who may be literate? Disability and resistance to the cultural denial of competence. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 163-192. Kliewer, C., & Landis, D. (1999). Individualizing literacy instruction for young children with moderate to severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 66, 85-100. Koppenhaver, D. A. (1995). AAC, FC, and the ABCs: Issues

and relationships. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology,4, 5-14. National Institute for Literacy. (2001). Put reading firstc The research building blocks for teachingchildrento read. Washington, DC: Author. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Ryndak, D. L., & Alper, S. (2003). Curriculum and instruction for students with significant disabilities in inclusive settings (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ryndak, D. L., Morrison, A. P, & Sommerstein, L. (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. Senechal, M., Thomas, E., & Monker, J. A. (1995). Individual differences in vocabulary acquisition. Journalof Educational Psychology, 87, 218-229. Skotko, B. G., Koppenhaver, D. A., & Erickson, K. A. (2004). Parent reading behaviors and communication outcomes in girls with Rett syndrome. Exceptional Children, 70, 145-166. Snyder, T. L., Freeman-Lorentz, K., & McLaughlin, T. F (1993). The effects of augmentative communication on vocabulary acquisition with primary age students with disabilities. B. C. Journal of Special Education, 17, 73-93. Spooner, F, Baker, J. N., Harris, A. A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Browder, D. M. (2007). Effects of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 108-116. Stephenson, J., & Linfoot, K. (1995). Choice-making as a natural context for teaching early communication board use to a ten year old language and severe intellectual disability. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities,20, 263-286. Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill. U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Reading first. Retrieved June 12, 2008, from http:l/www.ed.gov/programslreadingfirstl index.html. Vacca, J., Vacca, R., Grove, M., Burkey, L., Lenhart, L., & McKeon, C. (2006). Reading and learning to read (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Received: June 23, 2008 Final Acceptance: November 10, 2008 Editor in Charge: Roberta Schnorr

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Teaching Elementary Students With Multiple Disabilities to Participate in Shared Stories SOURCE: Res Pract Pers Severe Disabil 33 no1/2 Spr/Summ 2008 The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited.