Evaluating the Evidence Base of Shared Story Reading to Promote Literacy for Students With Extensive Support Needs

Abstract

This study reviewed published literature to determine the level of evidence for using shared story reading to promote literacy. Shared story reading was defined as a practice used to access age-appropriate literature through reader-listener interaction in which a story is read aloud and student interaction with the reader and the story is supported. Literacy was defined as skills that increased access to age appropriate literature (e. g., listening comprehension) and reading independence (e. g., vocabulary, comprehension), including emergent literary skills. Using a quality indicator checklist to determine research quality and standards to establish level of evidence, results indicated a moderate level of evidence for using shared story reading to promote the literacy of students with extensive support needs. The importance of identifying evidencebased practices, implications for practice, and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Full text

Evaluating the Evidence Base of Shared
Story Reading to Promote Literacy
for Students With Extensive
Support Needs
Melissa E. Hudson and David W. Test
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
This study reviewed published literature to determine
the level of evidence for using shared story reading to
promote literacy. Shared story reading was defined as a
practice used to access age-appropriate literature through
readerYlistener interaction in which a story is read aloud
and student interaction with the reader and the story is
supported. Literacy was defined as skills that increased
access to age appropriate literature (e.g., listening com-
prehension) and reading independence (e.g., vocabulary,
comprehension), including emergent literary skills. Using a
quality indicator checklist to determine research quality
and standards to establish level of evidence, results indi-
cated a moderate level of evidence for using shared story
reading to promote the literacy of students with extensive
support needs. The importance of identifying evidence-
based practices, implications for practice, and suggestions
for future research are discussed.
DESCRIPTORS: shared story reading, literacy, ex-
tensive support needs, evidence-based practice, adapted
stories, reading instruction, reading comprehension, spe-
cial education
Learning to read may be one of the most important
outcomes of education, yet reading instruction has not
been a priority for most students with extensive support
needs. For example, in their ethnographic study, Kliewer
and Landis (1999) found a lack of focus on written lan-
guage for students with moderate and severe disabilities
in the inclusive classrooms they observed. Instead, the
researchers found instruction that focused on preliteracy
skills thought to be necessary before learning to read
and write (e.g., attending to task). Additionally, in the
last 30 years, the scope of reading instruction has been
limited for these students. The National Reading Panel
Report recommended reading instruction include pho-
nemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and com-
prehension (National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, 2000), yet, in a comprehensive
review of reading instruction for students with signifi-
cant cognitive disabilities from 1975 to 2003, Browder,
Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Algozzine (2006)
found only 13 of 128 studies focused on phonics instruc-
tion and five on phonemic awareness. Instead, most of
the research focused on teaching functional sight words
and picture identification.
Limited reading instruction may be due to the per-
ception that students with extensive support needs would
not become independent readers. Kliewer and Biklen
(2001) likened this traditional goal of reading to a ladder
climbed one rung at a time until the top is reached (e.g.,
independent reading). When students with extensive
support needs are not considered able to Bclimb[to the
top of the ladder due to deficits in communication or
other aspects of their disability, reading instruction is
not a priority. Although some students with extensive
support needs may never learn to read independently, the
only way to know if a student can learn to read is to
try to teach them (Kliewer, 2009), and if a student fails
to learn, the instruction’s effectiveness is to be questioned
rather than the student’s ability to learn (Jorgensen , 2005).
When reading is understood to be a social and cultural
practice every child participates in as a reader (e.g., as-
sumed competence), opportunities to engage with written
words can occur (Kliewer & Biklen, 2001; Kliewer &
Landis, 1999).
Shared Story Reading
One way to actively engage nonreaders in age-
appropriate literature is through shared story reading
(Browder, Gibbs, et al., 2009). Shared story reading (also
called read alouds, repeated storybook reading, story-
based lesson, and literacy-based lesson) involves reading
a story aloud to a student and providing support for
the student to interact with the reader about the story.
Common features of shared story reading are repeated
story lines, attention getters (e.g., a seashell for a story
about the beach), picture symbolspaired with words, sum-
marized text with controlled vocabulary (Browder, Trela,
& Jimenez, 2007), and repeated readings (Mims, 2009).
Address all correspondence and reprint requests to Melissa E.
Hudson, Department of Special Education and Child Develop-
ment, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC
28223. E-mail: mhudso29@uncc.edu
Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities
2011, Vol. 36, No. 1Y2, 34–45 copyright 2011 by
TASH
34
at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on July 20, 2016rps.sagepub.comDownloaded from

When shared story reading is used with older children
(e.g., story-based lesson or literature-based lesson), the
content and style of the lessons differ to reflect that of
age-appropriate literature (e.g., chapters; Browder et al.,
2007).
Justice and Lankford (2002) found young children
gained emergent literacy through their experiences with
shared story reading. Emergent literacy is knowledge of
the forms and functions of print and the relationship be-
tween oral and written language (Teale & Sulzby, 1986)
usually learned in the preschool years. Shared story read-
ing promotes emergent literacy by (a) talking about and
pointing to the print, (b) asking questions and making
comments about the story and illustrations, and (c) point-
ing out and tracking the book’s print. Shared story reading
has been used to promote emergent literacy in typically
developing children by systematically engaging them in
the reading process (Whitehurst et al., 1988), increas-
ing vocabulary development (Blewitt, Rump, Shealy, &
Cook, 2009), increasing print awareness (Pullen & Justice,
2003), and increasing receptive word learning (Justice,
2002).
Shared story reading has also been used to promote emer-
gent literacy with at-risk preschoolers (Box & Aldridge,
1993; Coyne, Simmons, Kame’enui, & Stoolmiller, 2004;
Justice, Meier, & Walpole, 2005) and young children with
mild disabilities, including specific language impairments
(Justice, Kaderavek, Bowles, & Grimm, 2005), visual im-
pairments (Hatton & Sapp, 2005), and mild intellectual
disabilities (Katims, 1991). For example, Katims (1991)
evaluated the impact of shared storybook reading on
kindergarten children with mild or behavioral disabili-
ties and found students who participated in shared story
reading had greater gains in book knowledge than chil-
dren who did not participate in shared stories. Next, Box
and Aldridge (1993) evaluated shared reading experi-
ences of 4-year-olds attending Head Start and found the
group given shared reading experiences with predictable
books scored higher on a print concept test than two
groups who did not participate in shared story reading.
Last, Coyne et al. (2004) found kindergartners with low
receptivevocabulary whoparticipated instorybook read-
ing with explicitly taught vocabulary definitions made
greater vocabulary gains than students who received
instruction from a commercial reading program.
In addition to at-risk children or children with mild
disabilities, results of recent research indicate shared story
reading can promote literacy for students with extensive
support needs (Browder, Mims, Spooner, Ahlgrim-
Delzell, & Lee, 2008; Koppenhaver, Erickson, & Skotko,
2001; Mims, Browder, Baker, Lee, & Spooner, 2009;
Spooner, Rivera, Browder, Baker, & Salas, 2009). For
example, Koppenhaver et al. (2001) found shared story
reading between mothers and their daughters with Rett
syndrome promoted the girls’ early symbolic communica-
tion and Browder, Mims et al. (2008). found team planning
using principles of universal design for learning (UDL)
and a task analysis during shared story reading promoted
increases in communication, engagement, and compre-
hension for three students with profound disabilities
who had previously been unresponsive during reading
instruction. Next, Mims et al. (2009) found listening com-
prehension for two elementary students with significant
intellectual disabilities and visual impairments increased
when a book was adapted by velcroing actual objects to
the pages and system of least prompts was used during
shared story reading. Last, Spooner et al. (2009) found
story-based lessons relevant to the student’s heritage that
began in the student’s native language and gradually in-
creased instruction in English promoted emergent liter-
acy skills for an English language learner with moderate
intellectual disability.
Evidence-Based Practice in Special Education
Cook and Schirmer (2006) stated the use of individu-
alized instruction and effective teaching practices sepa-
rates special education from general education and the
ability of special educators to distinguish effective from
ineffective practices is critical for keeping special educa-
tion Bspecial.[Special educators often decide which in-
structional practices to use in their classrooms and should
consider thelevel of evidence supporting a practice when
making these decisions. Additionally, recent legislation
(No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 2002; Individuals
With Disabilities Education Act, 2004) requires theuse of
evidence-based practices when teaching students with
disabilities. An evidence-based practice is an educational
practice that (a) has been demonstrated effective through
research and (b) undergone a systematic review (Odom
et al., 2005). In a special edition of Exceptional Children,
criteria for establishing evidence-based practices in
special education using published research was proposed
for four research designs in terms of quality indicators
and standards, including (a) group and quasiexperimental
research (Gersten et al., 2005), (b) single-subject research
(Horner, Carr, McGee, Odom, & Wolery, 2005), (c) cor-
relational research (Thompson, Diamond, McWilliam,
Snyder, & Snyder, 2005), and (d) qualitative studies
(Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson,
2005).
These 2005 quality indicators and standards have been
applied to published research to establish evidence-based
practices in special education. For example, Browder
et al. (2006) conducted a comprehensive review of read-
ing instruction research for individuals with significant
cognitive disabilities to determine the extent to which
evidence-based practices currently exist for teaching the
five components of reading (National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, 2000). Browder and
colleagues considered research quality as well as practice
effect size from high-quality studies to make a determi-
nation and applied the criteria recommended by Horner
et al. (2005), but clustered the criteria into four rating cat-
egories. The percentage of nonoverlapping data between
35
Using Shared Story Reading to Promote Literacy
at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on July 20, 2016rps.sagepub.comDownloaded from

baseline and treatment phases (Scruggs, Mastropieri, &
Castro, 1987) was used to calculate effect sizes of the
practices used in studies that met all (e.g., four) or most
(e.g., three) quality indicators. Browder et al. found
teaching sight word reading using systematic prompting
techniques in a repeated (massed) trial format to be
evidence-based.
In a comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis
on research teaching mathematics to students with severe
cognitivedisabilities, Browder, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell,
Harris, and Wakeman (2008) evaluated both group and
single-subject studies, but only single-subject research
provided a large enough database for evaluation. The
quality of research was evaluated using a subset of in-
dicators recommended for single subject research by
Horner et al. (2005) and effect sizes of practices from
studies that met Ball[or Bmost[quality indicators were
calculated using percentage of nonoverlapping data be-
tween the baseline and treatment phases (Scruggs et al.,
1987). The authors found systematic instruction (i.e.,
specific prompt fading procedures with feedbackand a set
of defined responses across time) forteaching mathemat-
ics and explicit fading strategies for teaching purchasing
skills to be evidenced-based practices for students with
severe cognitive disabilities.
Additionally, Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Spooner, Mims,
and Baker (2009) conducted a review of the literature on
teaching literacy to students with severe developmental
disabilities to determine if time delay was an evidence-
based practice. The authors modified and clarified
indicators recommended by Horner et al. (2005) for
single-subject research quality by (a) creating defini-
tions specific for reviewing time delay research, (b)
eliminating indicators considered nonessential (e.g., test
or tests used for classifying type of participant disability),
and (c) adding extra qualifiers (e.g., a statement about
who collected data was added to dependent variable
indicator). Only research that met all quality indica-
tors were used in the determination. Browder, Ahlgrim-
Delzell, et al. found time delay to be an evidence-based
practice for teaching symbols to students with moder-
ate and severe disabilities. The purpose of this study
was to evaluate published research to determine the
level of evidence for using shared story reading to
promote literacy for students with extensive support
needs (i.e., students with intellectual disability, autism,
or multiple disabilities).
Method
Literature Search and Selection Procedures
The studies used to evaluate the evidence base for
shared story reading to promote literacy met the follow-
ing inclusion criteria: (a) experimental study published
in a peer-reviewed journal or doctoral dissertation, (b)
included participants with extensive support needs (i.e.,
students with intellectual disability, autism, or multiple
disabilities), (c) used shared story reading in the interven-
tion (independent variable), and (d) included at least one
measure of literacy as a dependent variable. Shared story
reading was defined as a practice used to access age-
appropriate literature through readerYlistener interaction
in which a story was read aloud and student interaction
with the reader and the story was supported. Literacy
was defined as skills that increased access to age appro-
priate literature (e.g., listening comprehension) and read-
ing independence (e.g., vocabulary and comprehension),
including emergent literary skills. A broad definition of
literacy is important for students with extensive support
needs because their literacy skills and instructional needs
may fall far below their peers due to aspects of their
disability (e.g., nonverbal augmentative communication
user). If literacy was defined solely as a bridge to read-
ing independence, students with extensive support needs
could be stuck Bgetting ready to read[or deemed un-
able to benefit from literacy instruction. Broadening the
definition of literacy to include access to age appropriate
literature as well as reading independence also empha-
sizes the changes that should occur in materials and in-
struction as students grow older (e.g., shifting from how
to read in elementary grades to functional reading in
high school).
Keywords or combination of keywords used in the
electronic search were shared story reading,read alouds,
storybook reading,story-based lesson,literacy-based les-
son,special education,severe intellectual disability,exten-
sive support needs,andautism. The EBSCOhost research
databases searched were Academic Search Premier,ERIC,
MasterFILE Premier,Middle Search Plus,Health Source:
Nursing/Academic Edition,PsycINFO,CINAHL With
Full Text,PsycARTICLES,Education Research Complete,
and Educational Administration Abstracts. References of
identified studies were reviewed by hand to identify any
study(ies) missed the electronic search.
Coding Procedure
A two-step procedure developed by researchers at the
National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Cen-
ter (NSTTAC; Test et al., 2009) was used to review lit-
erature that included (a) evaluating the quality of a study
(i.e., high and acceptable) and (b) determining the level
of evidence for a practice (i.e., strong, moderate, and
potential). In Step 1, a 20-item quality indicator checklist
for quality research based on the quality indicators rec-
ommended by Horner et al. (2005) was applied to each
study. Table 1 describes the quality indicators and def-
initions used to determine the presence or absence of
the indicators, including (a) participants, (b) setting, (c) de-
pendent variable/measures, (d) independent variable/
intervention, (e) procedures, (f) results/graphs/design, and
(g) social validity. A dichotomous decision (i.e., yes or
no) was made about the presence or absence of each
quality indicator. Studies that met all quality indicators
had high quality, whereas studies that met all quality
36 Hudson and Test
at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on July 20, 2016rps.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Table 1
Quality Indicators and Definitions
Quality indicators Definitions
Participants
1. Participants were described with sufficient detail to allow
others to select individuals with similar characteristics
(e.g., age, gender, disability, and diagnosis).
Age, disability, gender reported, and the description provided allows
for possible replication of the study. Participants were operationally
described.
2. The process for selecting participants was described
with replicable precision (not necessary for moderate). The process by which students were selected for participation is replicable.
Participant selection was operationally described (or description of
participants thorough enough that selection for future researchers is clear).
Setting
3. Critical features of the physical setting were described
with sufficient precision to allow replication. Operational descriptions of the setting were provided. Another
researcher should be able to use the description of participants and
setting to recruit similar participants who inhabit similar settings.
Dependent variable/measures
4. All dependent variables were described with
operational precision. What is being measured in the study was operationally defined. Each
dependent variable is described for valid consistent assessment of
the variable.
5. Each dependent variable was measured with a
procedure that generates a quantifiable index. Measure of dependent variable is quantifiable (e.g., frequency and time)
or observable.
6. The measurement process was described with
replicable precision. The assessment process for each dependent variable can be replicated
based on the description of measurement provided.
7. Dependent variables were measured repeatedly
over time. The dependent variable is measured repeatedly to allow for observation
of patterns prior to intervention and comparison of performance
across conditions or phases.
8. Data were collected on the reliability or interobserver
agreement (IOA) associated with each dependent
variable, and IOA levels met minimal standards
(e.g., IOA = 80%; Kappa = 60%).
Interobserver reliability data were collected repeatedly throughout
various phases of the study (e.g., not only in baseline).
Independent variable/intervention
9. Independent variable was described with replicable
precision. The independent variable was operationally defined to allow both valid
interpretation of the results and accurate replication of the procedures
and may include descriptions of materials and specific actions but
should avoid only generic descriptions (e.g., cooperative play) that
are prone to high variability in implementation.
10. Independent variable was systematically manipulated
and under the control of the experimenter. The independent variable was systematically manipulated (actively
manipulated) by the researcher (not a naturally occurring event).
The researcher determined when and how the independent variable
would change.
11. Overt measurement of the fidelity of implementation
for independent variable (not necessary for moderate) Documentation of procedural fidelity measures were provided, either
through a continuous direct measure of the independent variable’s
implementation or some other measure that is reported.
Procedures
12. A baseline phase provided repeated measurement
of a dependent variable and established a pattern of
responding that can be used to predict the pattern of
future performance, if introduction or manipulation
of the independent variable did not occur.
The dependent variable was observed until a pattern of responding
is consistent to allow for prediction of future responses (five
or more are recommended, fewer are acceptable if pattern
established).
13. The procedural characteristics of the baseline
conditions were described with replicable precision. Baseline conditions/procedures described with replicable procedures.
Baseline should be described to the same level of detail as a treatment
phase to allow for comparisons and replication of the study.
Results/graphs/design
14. The design provides at least three demonstrations of
experimental effect at different points in time. At least three demonstrations of effect of the intervention were
demonstrated at three points in time with one participant or across
at least three participants. A demonstration of effect is an increase
(desired increase), decrease (desired decrease), or desired reversal in
direction of the anticipated pattern of data, with the introduction of the
independent variable. Look at graphs for this evidence. A functional
relationship is compromised when (a) there is a long latency between
manipulation of the IV and a change in the DV, (b) mean changes
across conditions are similar to changes within conditions, or (c) trends
do not follow those predicted by introduction of the IV.
37Using Shared Story Reading to Promote Literacy
at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on July 20, 2016rps.sagepub.comDownloaded from

indicators but Indicator 2 and/or 11 and at least one
social validity quality indicator (e.g., 17, 18, 19, or 20)
had acceptable quality.
In Step 2, the Decision Rules for Determining Levels of
Evidence (see Table 2) were used to determine the level
of evidence for the practice based on the following stan-
dards (a) number of high or acceptable quality studies,
(b) number of research teams, (c) a demonstration of
functional relationship, and (d) the absence of contradic-
tory evidence from a study reflecting strong evidence. A
strong level of evidence was established if a practice had
five high-quality studies, three independent research
teams, a demonstration of functional relationship, and
no contradictory evidence from a study reflecting strong
evidence. A moderate level of evidence was established if
a practice had three high-quality or acceptable quality
studies, one or two independent research teams, and a
demonstration of functional relationship. A practice with
apotential level of evidence had two high-quality or
acceptable studies, one or two independent research
teams, and a demonstration of functional relationship.
Results
A total of 13 studies were located through the search
process that appeared to meet the inclusion criteria.
However, a second review revealed that three studies
were not experimental (e.g., descriptive, multielement
design, and AB design) and participants in four studies
did not have extensive support needs (e.g., language im-
pairments and at-risk kindergarteners). Table 3 summa-
rizes the six studies included in this review.
Quality indicators Definitions
15. The design controls for common threats to internal
validity (e.g., permits elimination of rival hypotheses). Experimental control demonstrated through (a) introduction and
withdrawal of the independent variable, (b) staggered introduction
of the independent variable, or (c) manipulation of levels of the
independent variable across observation periods.
16. Experimental effects were replicated across
participants, settings, or materials to establish
external validity.
Within one study external validity is enhanced through replicable
descriptions of (a) participants, (b) study context, and (c) factors
influencing behavior prior to intervention. Also enhanced through use
of multiple participants or settings and multiple measures of the DV
in one study. Weakened by selection and attrition bias. Demonstrated
through systematic replications of studies across multiple locations
and multiple researchers.
Social validity (must of have one of these four for acceptable quality)
17. The dependent variable is socially important. The dependent variable selected was important for the individual(s)
included in the study. A measure (interview and survey) strengthens
the quality of the studyVwithout a measure, only acceptable.
18. The magnitude of change in the dependent variables
resulting from the intervention is measured as
socially important.
The amount of change in performance (dependent variable) has social
significance, according to the author’s analysis of the SV measure.
The amount of increase or decrease in a behavior as a result of the
manipulation of the IV matters.
19. Implementation of the independent variable was
described by author as practical and cost effective. Costs reported and the procedures associated with the IV were determined
by the author (or stakeholders) to be practical and cost efficient.
Consider number of people required to implement the intervention,
time allocated for the intervention, required manipulation of the
setting, required materials.
20. Social validity is enhanced by implementation of
the independent variable over extended time periods,
by typical intervention agents, in typical physical and
social contexts.
Typical intervention agents reported the procedures to be acceptable,
feasible, and effective and choose to continue to the intervention after
the study. This is enhanced by studies that demonstrate use of the IV
with typical intervention agents (e.g., parents and teachers), in contexts
that are not overly disruptive to regular class or home routines.
Table 1
(continued)
Table 2
Decision Rules for Determining Levels of Evidence Using
Single-Subject Research
Levels of evidence Standards
Strong &Five high-quality studies (i.e., meets
all quality indicators)
&Three independent research teams
&Must have a functional relationship
&No contradictory evidence from a
study reflecting strong evidence
Moderate &Three high-quality or acceptable
quality studies (i.e., meets all
quality indicators except
Indicators 2 and 11 and at least
one of Indicators 17Y20)
&One to two independent research
teams
&Must have a functional relationship
Potential (needs
additional research) &Two high-quality or acceptable
quality studies
&One to two independent research
teams
&Must have a functional relationship
38 Hudson and Test
at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on July 20, 2016rps.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Interrater Reliability on Quality Indicators
Interrater reliability data were collected on four ran-
domly selected studies (67%) from the group of six
studies. A second rater independently coded each study,
then each was compared item by item, recording agree-
ments and disagreements. The number of agreements
was divided by the number of agreements plus disagree-
ments and multiplied by 100. Mean interrater reliability
for the four studies was 97.5% with a range of 95Y100%.
Quality Indicator Findings
Six studies met the inclusion criteria for using the
practice of shared story reading to promote literacy for
students with extensive support needs. All studies used
shared story reading in the intervention and included
literacy as the dependent variable. Shared story reading
was not used under baseline conditions in the studies
reviewed and only implemented as part of a multiple
component intervention package. The results from each
study by quality indicators are presented in Table 4. No
study met all of the quality indicators developed by
NSTTAC (Test et al., 2009) based on the criteria estab-
lished by Horner et al. (2005). Therefore, none of the
studies metthe standard for high-quality research. All six
studies, however, met 19 of 20 quality indicators, thereby
meeting the standard for acceptable quality research
established by NSTTAC (Test et al., 2009). All six studies
missed Indicator 19 (i.e., stated the intervention was
practical and cost effective) because the researchers did
not explicitly state that the intervention was practical and
cost effective. The definition developed by NSTTAC for
this quality indicator requires a statement of practicality
and cost effectiveness by the researchers or the indicator
is not met.
Level of Evidence
When quality indicators were applied to the six studies
reviewed, an acceptable level of quality was found for all
studies. Five of the studies were conducted by research
teams from one university and one by a research team
from a second university for a total of two independent
research teams. A functional relationship was demon-
strated for all six studies. According to the standards
stipulated in the Decision Rules for Determining Levels of
Evidence (Test et al., 2009; Table 2), six acceptable quality
studies, two independent research teams, and a demon-
stration of functional relationship establishes a moderate
level of evidence for using the practice of shared story
reading to promote literacy for students with extensive
support needs.
Discussion
This review of the literature used a quality indicator
checklist and standards developed by Test and colleagues
(2009) based on the criteria recommended by Horner
et al. (2005) to determine the quality of research and level
of evidence for using shared story reading to promote lit-
eracy for students with extensive support needs. Cur-
rent researchers (Browder, Gibbs, et al., 2009; Mims
et al., 2009) have described shared story reading as a
promising practice for promoting literacy for students
with severe disabilities. Based on the number and quality
of the research reviewed, a moderate level of evidence
was found for using shared story reading to promote
literacy for students with extensive support needs. These
results add to the small, but growing, number of evidence-
based practices for students with extensive support needs.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this review. First, the
number of studies available for review was limited due to
a paucity of research evaluating reading practices for
students with extensive support needs. Second, five out
of six studies reviewed were from one research team.
Although this limitation does not detract from the quality
of research produced from the team’s line of research,
replication by other researchers is needed to build a
strong evidence base for a practice (Horner et al., 2005).
A third limitation of this review is that the practice of
shared story reading was one component of an interven-
tion package in each study. For example, students in the
Browder et al. (2007) study made gains in early literacy
skills (i.e., comprehension, target sound identification,
and reading the repeated story line) after their teachers
received individual training in the use of a literacy lesson
plan template (i.e., task analysis), systematic prompting,
and self-monitoring during shared story reading. In the
Browder, Mims, et al. (2008) study, students made gains
in independent responding and early comprehension
after team planning for the use of the components of
UDL, a task analysis template, and systematic instruction
during shared story reading was utilized. Additionally, in
the Mims et al. (2009) study, researchers found the use of
systematic prompting (i.e., system of least prompts with
an embedded reread prompt), task analytic instruction,
and actual objects used as noun referents during shared
story reading promoted listening comprehension at a
literal recall level for students with significant intellectual
disability and visual impairments. Although most shared
story reading procedures included a task analysis, sys-
tematic prompting, and adapted literature, it is not known
how much any one of these components or combinations
of components contributed to the success of the practice.
More research is needed on these components across a
variety of students, disabilities, and literature.
Suggestions for Future Research
Only six experimental studies evaluating the use of
shared story reading to promote literacy for this popula-
tion were found in the published literature, indicating a
need for more research. Additionally, all studies reviewed
investigated the effects of shared story reading to promote
39
Using Shared Story Reading to Promote Literacy
at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on July 20, 2016rps.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Table 3
Summary of Studies Using Shared Story Reading to Promote Literacy
Study Independent variables Dependent variable Design Participants Research group Results
Browder,
Mims, et al.
(2008)
&Team planning for use
of UDL The number of independent
student responses during
shared story reading,
including active responding
and early comprehension
skills are indicated by an *
Multiple probe
single subject
across participants
design
Three elementary
students, aged 7,
7, and 10 years
University of
North Carolina
at Charlotte,
Charlotte, NC
All students increased
independent correct
responses, including
active responding and
early comprehension
skills, following
intervention
&Task analysis template
&Choose book to read
Severe/profound
cognitive disabilities,
physical impairments
&Shared story read alouds
&Attend to chosen book while
title and author are read Nonverbal
&Individualized student
response task analysis
&Attend to materials used to
introduce the story’s theme
&System of least prompts
&Make a prediction*
&Adapted books
&React to name embedded
into story*
&Focus on object within 2 sec*
&Use a switch to read repeated
story line*
&React to surprise element
near end of story
&Demonstrate general story
comprehension*
&Communicate decision to
have story read again or not
Browder et al.
(2007) Teacher training,
including: Teacher behaviorVthe number
of steps completed on the
literacy lesson plan (25-step
task analysis) when teaching
the story-based lesson
Multiple probe
single subject
across participants
design
Three middle school
special educators University of
North Carolina
at Charlotte,
Charlotte, NC
All teachers performed all
steps of the task analysis
following training and
maintained performance at
high levels over new books
&Lesson plan template
(task analysis)
Student behaviorVearly literacy
skills measured by the number
of independent student
response, including:
Six middle school
students, aged 12,
12, 13, 13, 13, and
14 years All students made gains
in early literacy skills,
answering comprehension
questions, identifying
target sounds, and reading
therepeatedstorylinefrom
baseline to intervention
&Systematic instruction
&Make response to
attention-grabber activity
Moderate/Severe
intellectual disability
&Self-monitoring
&Point to/say title
Autism
&Adapted literature
&Point to/say author’s name
&Shared literature
reading
&Open own book
&Say or use AT to make a
prediction
&Point to chosen line of text
&Say/use AT to say vocabulary
&Say/use AT to say
repeated story line
&Turn page/request help
(using AT)
40 Hudson and Test
at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on July 20, 2016rps.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Study Independent variables Dependent variable Design Participants Research group Results
&Answer comprehension question
&Repeat vocabulary word
&Repeat target sound
Koppenhaver
et al. (2001) &Resting hand splints &Frequency of symbol use Multiple baseline
single subject
across behaviors
design
Four girls, aged 3Y7 years Gustavus
Adolphus
College,
St. Paul, MN
All four girls increased their
use of voice-output message
devices for symbolic
communication and
decreased their use of other
symbolic communication
(eye pointing or pointing
to pictures) during story
book reading
&Basic AAC and assistive
technologies &Appropriate switch use Rett syndrome, Severe
to profound
intellectual disability
&Parent training &Inappropriate symbol use
&Access to
communication
symbols
&Shared storybook
reading
Mims et al.
(2009) &Shared story reading The number of correct
independent selections
of one of two objects to
answer comprehension
questions asked throughout
the read aloud of the story
Multiple probe
single subject
across materials
design
Two elementary students,
6and9years University of
North Carolina
at Charlotte,
Charlotte, NC
Students increased the
number of literal recall
comprehension questions
answered correctly across
three books following
intervention
&System of least prompts
Questions measured listening
comprehension at a literal
recall level (i.e., What did
Alexander get stuck in his hair?)
Significant intellectual
disabilities and visual
impairments
&Use of objects as noun
referents from the story
&Adapted books
Mims (2009) &Shared story reading The number of correctly
answered comprehension
questions, including:
Multiple probe
single subject
across materials
design
4 middle school
students, aged 10,
11, 11, and 11 years
University of
North Carolina
at Charlotte,
Charlotte, NC
Students increased the number
of text-dependent listening
comprehension questions
correctly answered and
progressed from requiring
more intrusive prompting
(e.g. physical, model) to
less intrusive prompting
(e.g., verbal) to correctly
answer the comprehension
questions
&System of least prompts
&prediction Moderate intellectual
disability (3)
&Opportunities to hear
selections of texts again
(i.e., reread prompts) &factual recall
Multiple disabilities (1)
&sequencing
&application
&analysis
&synthesis (cause and
effect and main idea)
Spooner et al.
(2009) &Use of culturally
contextual story-based
lessons
Emergent literacy skills,
including: Multiple-probe
single subject
across skill
sets design
Six-year-old Spanish-
speaking student with
a moderate intellectual
disability
University of
North Carolina
at Charlotte,
Charlotte, NC
The student’s emergent
literacy skills (i.e., book
awareness, vocabulary
skills, and listening
comprehension) improved
following intervention
&Task analysis Skill set one
&Systematic instruction &Point/say title
&Books relevant to the
student’s heritage
&Point/say author’s name
&Beginning instruction in
the students native
language and gradually
increasing the amount
of English instruction
&Orient book
&Open book
41Using Shared Story Reading to Promote Literacy
at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on July 20, 2016rps.sagepub.comDownloaded from

literacy using fictional texts. Whereas more research is
needed with fictional literature, research is also needed
on the effects of using shared story reading to promote
literacy with nonfiction literature (e.g., biographies).
All studies reviewed met 19 of 20 quality indicators
using a checklist developed by Test et al. (2009) based on
Horner et al.’s (2005) criteria for quality single-subject
research. Indicator 19 was missed by all six studies be-
cause the interventionists did not state the intervention
was practical and cost effective. Other researchers have
interpreted an intervention to be practical and cost effec-
tive if it was teacher-implemented (Browder, Ahlgrim-
Delzell, et al., 2009) and did not require a statement of
practicality or cost effectiveness to meet this indicator.
However, if a statement of practicality or cost effective-
ness had been included, all six studies would have met 20
of 20 indicators for quality research, thereby meeting the
criteria for high-quality research. Authors of future re-
search should consider including such a statement when
describing the results of their research.
Only one of the studies reviewed conducted shared story
reading in a nonspecial education setting. Koppenhaver
et al. (2001) studied the effects of shared story reading
between mothers and their young daughters with Rett
syndrome within their homes. The other five studies
were conducted in self-contained classrooms in public
elementary and middle schools. Whereas most students
with severe intellectual disabilities receive instruction in
self-contained classrooms (Smith, 2003), recent research
investigating academic learning in inclusive settings for
this population is promising. For example, general edu-
cators and paraeducators used embedded systematic in-
struction within on-going classroom activities to promote
sight word recognition for students with severe disabil-
ities in inclusive settings (Johnson & McDonnell, 2004;
Riesen, McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Jameson,
2003; Wolery, Anthony, Snyder, Werts, & Katzenmeyer,
1997).
Sight word acquisition, however, is a discrete behavior
(e.g., a behavior that requires a single response) and
shared story reading requires instruction on chained
behaviors (e.g., behaviors linked together in a sequence).
Only one study was found in the literature that inves-
tigated the acquisition of a chained behavior in an in-
clusive setting (Collins, Branson, Hall, & Rankin, 2001).
In their study, Collins et al. (2001) taught a general edu-
cation teacher and three peer tutors to use system of least
prompts and an 11-step task analysis to teach four com-
ponents of letter writing (e.g., date, greeting, body, and
closing) to three high school students with moderate
and severe disabilities. Originally implemented by the
teacher, the intervention was revised to include peers
when the teacher was unable to deliver timely prompts
and the wait time between prompts became too long.
Although the results of this research is promising, it
remains an empirical question if shared story reading can
promote literacy in inclusive settings for students with
Study Independent variables Dependent variable Design Participants Research group Results
&Utilizing a teaching
assistant with similar
culture as student
Skill set two
&Answer prediction question
&Turn page
&Identify new vocabulary word
&Repeat story line
Skill set three
&Text point to words in a sentence
&Review prediction question
to determine if correct
&Answer comprehension questions
related to story
&Answer comprehension question
using new vocabulary word
Table 3
(continued)
42 Hudson and Test
at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on July 20, 2016rps.sagepub.comDownloaded from

extensive support needs. Research is needed to investi-
gate the efficacy of using the practice of shared story
reading in the general education classroom to promote
literacy and to develop effective instructional models that
can be implemented by general education teachers, para-
educators, and peers.
Implications for Practice
This study used a procedure developed by Test et al.
(2009) based on the recommended criteria of Horner
et al. (2005) to review published studies evaluating the
use of shared story reading to promote literacy for stu-
dents with extensive support needs. Based on the number
of acceptable quality studies supporting the practice and
the standards for determining level of evidence, a mod-
erate level of evidence was established for using shared
story reading to promote literacy for students with ex-
tensive support needs.
The work of Horner et al. (2005) provided the first
guidelines for evaluating the quality of single-subject de-
sign research and for using single-subject design research
to determine the evidence base of practices. Horner et al.
recommended 21 quality indicators to evaluate the quality
of single-subject research and five standards to establish
the evidence base for a practice. According to Horner
et al.’s recommendations, high-quality single-subject spe-
cial education research must meet all 21 quality indicators
and only high-quality research can be used to establish
the evidence base of a practice.
The first implication for practice is that requiring
experimental research to meet all 21 quality indicators for
high-quality special education research (Horner et al.,
2005) may prohibit quality research from contributing
to the evidence base of a practice. For example, Lane,
Kalberg, and Shepcaro (2009) reviewed single-subject
research to determine the evidence base of function-
based interventions for middle and high school students
with or at risk for emotional and/or behavioral disorders
and found onlyone of the 12 studies met all 21 standards.
Additionally, in a review of interventions that improved
self-advocacy for students with disabilities, Test, Fowler,
Brewer, and Wood (2005) found only one of 11 single-
subject studies met all 21 quality indicators recommended
by Horner et al. (2005).
Cook, Tankersley, and Landrum (2009) stated that the
purpose of the literature review should drive the method
Table 4
Quality Indicators Met for Using Shared Story Reading to Promote Literacy
Quality indicators Browder, Mims,
et al. (2008) Browder
et al. (2007) Koppenhaver
et al. (2001) Mims
et al. (2009) Mims (2009) Spooner
et al. (2009)
Participants
1. Participant Description Y Y Y Y Y Y
2. Participant Selection Y Y Y Y Y Y
Setting
3. Setting Description Y Y Y Y Y Y
Dependent variable
4. Operationally Defined Y Y Y Y Y Y
5. Quantifiable Measurement Y Y Y Y Y Y
6. Replicable Measurement Process Y Y Y Y Y Y
7. Measured Repeatedly Y Y Y Y Y Y
8. Interobserver Agreement Y Y Y Y Y Y
Independent variable
9. Replicable Description Y Y Y Y Y Y
10. Systematic Manipulation Y Y Y Y Y Y
11. Procedural Fidelity Y Y Y Y Y Y
Procedures
12. Baseline Y Y Y Y Y Y
13. Replicable Baseline Procedure Y Y Y Y Y Y
Results/graphs/design
14. Three Demonstrations of
Experimental Effect YYYYYY
15. Internal validity Y Y Y Y Y Y
16. Replicated across participants,
settings, or materials YYYYYY
Social validity
17. DV is Socially Important Y Y Y Y Y Y
18. Amount of Learning is
Socially Important YYYYYY
19. IV is practical and cost effective NO NO NO NO NO NO
20. Used in typical contexts Y Y Y Y Y Y
Total 19 19 19 19 19 19
Note. High quality = meets all quality indicators, Acceptable = meets all quality indicators except Indicators 2 and 11 and meets at least
one of Indicators 17Y20.
43Using Shared Story Reading to Promote Literacy
at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on July 20, 2016rps.sagepub.comDownloaded from

used for determining the evidence base of practices. If
the purpose of the review is to determine the level of
evidence for a practice to help educators make informed
decisions regarding the instructional practices they use in
their classrooms, a procedure like the one developed by
Test et al. (2009) that considers both high-quality and
acceptablequality research when establishing the level of
evidence for an instructional practice may be useful.
The second implication for practice is that researchers
and educators can work together to provide evidence-
based practices for students with disabilities and, in turn,
close the research to practice gap. Effective instruction is
the hallmark of special education and all interventions
are not equal (Cook et al., 2009). Considering the level
of evidence supporting an instructional practice is a good
way for educators to choose between the instructional
practices available.
A final implication for practice is the need for educators
to provide quality literacy experiences with chronologi-
cally age-appropriate literature for students with exten-
sive support needs. There were 20 participants involved
in the studies reviewed that ranged in age from 3 to
14 years with varying disabilities (e.g., moderate, severe,
profound intellectual disability, physical impairments, vi-
sual impairments, and autism), yet all demonstrated gains
in literacy through shared story reading. A common com-
ponent of shared story reading is the use of adapted, age-
appropriate books. Fortunately, resources for adapted
grade-level books are becoming easier for educators to
find and a good source of adapted books for elementary,
middle, and high school students is the general curriculum
project (http://www.education.uncc.edu/access/).
References
Blewitt, P., Rump, K., Shealy, S., & Cook, S. (2009). Shared book
reading: When and how questions affect young children’s
word learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,101,
294Y304.
Box, J. A., & Aldridge, J. (1993). Shared reading experiences
and Head Start children’s concepts about print and story
structure. Perceptual and Motor Skills,77, 929Y930.
Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., &
Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special educa-
tion. Exceptional Children,71, 195Y207.
Browder, D. M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Spooner, F., Mims, P. J.,
& Baker, J. N. (2009). Using time delay to teach literacy to
students with severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional
Children,75, 343Y364.
Browder, D. M., Gibbs, S., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G. R.,
Mraz, M., & Flowers, C. (2009). Literacy for students with
severe developmental disabilities: What should we teach and
what should we hope to achieve? Remedial and Special Edu-
cation,30,269Y282.
Browder, D. M., Mims, P., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., &
Lee, A. (2008). Teaching elementary students with multiple
disabilities to participate in shared stories. Research and Prac-
tice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,33,3Y12.
Browder, D. M., Trela, K., & Jimenez, B. (2007). Training
teachers to follow a task analysis to engage middle school
students with moderate and severe developmental disabil-
ities in grade-appropriate literature. Focus on Autism and
Other Developmental Disabilities,22, 206Y219.
Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell,
L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading instruction
for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Excep-
tional Children,72, 392Y408.
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Harris, A. A.,
& Wakeman, S. (2008). A meta-analysis on teaching math-
ematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities.
Exceptional Children,74, 407Y432.
Collins, B. C., Branson, T. A., Hall, M., & Rankin, S. W. (2001).
Teaching secondary students with moderate disabilities in
an inclusive academic classroom setting. Journal of Develop-
mental and Physical Disabilities,13,41Y59.
Cook, B. G., & Schirmer, B. R. (2006). An overview and analysis
of the role of evidence-based practices in special education. In
B. G. Co ok & B. R. Schir mer (E ds. ), What is special about
special education? Examining the role of evidence-based prac-
tices (pp. 175Y185). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Landrum, T. J. (2009). De-
termining evidence-based practices in special education.
Exceptional Children,75, 365Y383.
Coyne,M. D., Simmons, D. C., Kame’enui, E. J.,& Stoolmiller, M.
(2004). Teaching vocabulary during shared storybook read-
ings: An examination of differential effects. Exceptionality,12,
145Y162.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood,
C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group
experimental and quasi-experimental research in special
education. Exceptional Children,71, 149Y164.
Hatton, D. D., & Sapp, W. K. (2005). Interventions to facilitate
emergent literacy. In W. K. Sapp & D. D. Hatton, Commu-
nication and emergent literacy: Early intervention issues [multi-
media compact disc]. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham
Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill.
Horner,R.H.,Carr,E.G.,McGee,G.,Odom,S.,&Wolery,M.
(2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-
based practice in special education. Exceptional Children,71,
165Y179.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004, 20 U.S.C. x1400 et seq. (2004) (reauthorization of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990).
Johnson, J. W., & McDonnell, J. (2004). An exploratory study
of the implementation of embedded instruction by general
educators with students with developmental disabilities.
Education and Treatment of Children,27,46Y63.
Jorgensen, C. (2005). The least dangerous assumption: A chal-
lenge to create a new paradigm. Disability Solutions,6,1Y9.
Justice, L. M. (2002). Word exposure conditions and preschoo-
lers’ novel word learning during shared storybook reading.
Reading Psychology,23,87Y106.
Justice, L. M., Kaderavek, J., Bowles, R., & Grimm, K. (2005).
Languageimpairment,parent-childsharedreading,and phono-
logical awareness: A feasibility study. Topics in Early Child-
hood Special Education,25,143Y156.
Justice, L. M., & Lankford, C. (2002). Preschool children’s
visual attention to print during storybook reading: Pilot find-
ings. Communication Disorders Quarterly,24,11Y21.
Justice, L. M., Meier, J., & Walpole, S. (2005). Learning new
words from storybooks: An efficacy study with at-risk kinder-
gartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
36,17Y32.
Katims, D. S. (1991). Emergent literacy in early childhood
special education: Curriculum and instruction. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education,11,69Y84.
Kliewer, C. (2008). Joining the literacy flow: Fostering sym-
bol and written language learning in young children with
significant development disabilities through the four currents
44 Hudson and Test
at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on July 20, 2016rps.sagepub.comDownloaded from

of literacy. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities,33, 102Y121.
Kliewer, C., & Biklen, D. (2001). BSchool’s not really a place for
reading[: A research synthesis of the literate lives of students
with severe disabilities. The Journal of the Association for
Persons With Severe Handicaps,26,1Y12.
Kliewer, C., & Landis, D. (1999). Individualizing literacy
instruction for young children with moderate to severe dis-
abilities. Exceptional Children,66,85Y100.
Koppenhaver, D. A., Erickson, K. A., & Skotko, B. G. (2001).
Supporting communication of girls with Rett syndrome and
their mothers in storybook reading. International Journal of
Disability, Development and Education,48, 396Y410.
Lane, K. L., Kalberg, J. R., & Shepcaro, J. C. (2009). An examina-
tion of the evidence base for function-based interventions for
students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders attending
middle and high schools. Exceptional Children,75,321Y340.
Mims, P. J., Browder, D. M., Baker, J. N., Lee, A., & Spooner, F.
(2009). Increasing comprehension of students with significant
intellectual disabilities and visual impairments during shared
stories. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities,
44, 409Y420.
Mims, P. J. (2009). The effects of the system of least prompts on
teaching comprehension skills during a shared story to students
with significant intellectual disabilities (Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation). University of North Carolina at Charlotte,
Charlotte, North Carolina.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
(2000). Report 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
instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No.
00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 x6301 et seq.
(2002).
Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H.,
Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special
education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices.
Exceptional Children,71, 137Y148.
Pullen, P. C., & Justice, L. M. (2003). Enhancing phonological
awareness, print awareness, and oral language skills in pre-
school children. Intervention in School and Clinic,39(2), 87Y98.
Riesen, T., McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., &
Jameson, M. (2003). A comparison of constant time delay and
simultaneous prompting within embedded instruction in gen-
eral education classes with students with moderate to severe
disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education,12,241Y259.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Castro, G. (1987). The
quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology
and validation. Remedial and Special Education,8,24Y33.
Smith, A. (2003). Scientifically based research and evidence-based
education: A federal policy context. Research and Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities,28,126Y132.
Spooner, F., Rivera, C. J., Browder, D. M., Baker, J. N., & Salas,
S. (2009). Teaching emergent literacy skills using cultural
contextual story-based lessons. Research and Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities,34, 102Y112.
Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent literacy as a perspec-
tive for examining how young children become readers and
writers. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy:
Writing and reading (pp. viiYxxv). Norwood, MA: Ablex.
Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Brewer, D. M., & Wood, W. M. (2005).
A content and methodological review of self-advocacy inter-
vention studies. Exceptional Children,72,101Y125.
Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Richter, S. M., White, J., Mazzotti, V.,
Walker, A. R., Kohler, P., & Kortering, L. (2009). Evidence-
based practices in secondary transition. Career Development
for Exceptional Individuals,32, 115Y128.
Thompson, B., Diamond, K. E., McWilliam, R., Snyder, P., &
Snyder, S. W. (2005). Evaluating the quality of evidence from
correlational research for evidence-based practice. Excep-
tional Children,71, 181Y194.
Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E.,
DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Caulfield, M.
(1988). Accelerating language development through picture
book reading. Developmental Psychology,24, 552Y559.
Wolery, M., Anthony, L., Snyder, E. D., Werts, M. G., &
Katzenmeyer, J. (1997). Training elementary teachers to
embed instruction during classroom activities. Education and
Treatment of Children,20,40Y58.
Received: July 19, 2010
Final Acceptance: October 18, 2010
Editor in Charge: Craig A. Michaels
45Using Shared Story Reading to Promote Literacy
at UNIV NORTH CAROLINA-CHARLOTTE on July 20, 2016rps.sagepub.comDownloaded from