Content uploaded by Samantha Gross Toews
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Samantha Gross Toews on Jun 20, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
1
Literacy Instruction in General Education Settings: A Call to Action
Samantha Gross Toews
The University of Kansas
stoews@ku.edu
Jennifer A. Kurth
The University of Kansas
jkurth@ku.edu
Citation: Toews, S. G., & Kurth, J. A. (2019). Literacy Instruction in General Education
Settings: A Call to Action. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, doi:
1540796919855373.
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
2
Abstract
While legislation and research have promoted inclusive education and the importance of literacy
instruction for students with extensive support needs, the majority of literacy instruction research
continues to occur in separate self-contained special education settings. This article is a call to
action to the educational research community to elicit research on literacy instruction strategies,
including collaborative planning, teaching, and material preparation related to grade-level
general education curriculum in general education school settings. Findings from current
research on literacy instruction in separate special education and general education settings are
presented. Suggestions for future research and action are discussed.
Keywords: inclusion, literacy, severe disabilities, extensive support needs, collaboration,
research
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
3
Literacy Instruction in Inclusive Settings: A Call to Action
Few skills affect as many aspects of modern life as literacy, making literacy one of the
most important life skills to address for all students, including students with extensive support
needs. Literacy, which includes listening, speaking, and interacting as well as reading, writing,
and spelling, is a valued skill and fundamental human right for all people (Downing, 2007; Keefe
& Copeland, 2011). Literacy enhances and creates opportunities for students to interact in their
home, community, and school environments, as well as to engage within established adult roles,
such as employment (Cihak, Wright, Smith, McMahon, & Kraiss, 2015; Ruppar, Afacan, Yang,
& Pickett, 2017).
In the past 40 years, legislation has promoted access to improved literacy instruction for
all students in general education settings. The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), mandates access to a free and appropriate public education for
all students, including those with extensive support needs. Students with extensive support needs
comprise the 1% of students with the most extensive needs for support who are eligible to
complete their state’s alternate assessment, and historically have experienced limited access to
quality literacy instruction (Downing, 2007). IDEA also requires education in the least
restrictive environment with the supplementary aids and services necessary for all students to
succeed. Additionally, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) and the Supreme Court’s
decision in the case of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (Endrew F, 2017) require
that all students make progress toward grade level standards and appropriately ambitious goals.
Together, IDEA, ESSA, and Endrew F have compelled an increase in research on literacy
instruction for students with extensive support needs.
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
4
While a base of research has emerged on effective literacy instruction for students with
extensive support needs, this research has been conducted largely in separate self-contained
special education classrooms, rather than in general education classrooms (Roberts, Leko, &
Wilkerson, 2013). Thus, a significant gap exists between the empirical research and mandated
services, with a resultant critical need to identify effective literacy instructional practices in
general education settings for students with extensive support needs (IDEA, 2004; Kleinert et al.,
2015; Sauer & Jorgensen, 2016). This persistent lack of research on literacy instruction in
general education settings has left teacher preparation faculty, teachers, inclusive education
advocates, and the research community with few evidence-based practices to recommend
(Hudson & Browder, 2014; Ruppar et al., 2017). A strong base of research on literacy instruction
in inclusive settings is urgently needed to provide the field of education with knowledge that can
lead to quality literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs. This research is
particularly needed with students who communicate nonverbally or through augmentative or
alternative modes (Downing, 2005). The following call to action will first describe the existing
research on literacy instruction conducted in separate self-contained and general education
settings and then provide specific suggestions for future research.
Literacy Instruction for Students with Extensive Support Needs: A Problematic Past
Antiquated reading readiness and functional literacy approaches to education have been a
barrier to quality literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs (Keefe &
Copeland, 2011; Kliewer et al., 2004). These instructional approaches historically have
precluded students from comprehensive literacy instruction until they master specific pre-reading
skills (Afacan, Wilkerson, & Ruppar, 2018; Mirenda, 2003). The popularity of these
instructional approaches has prevented children with extensive support needs from receiving
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
5
explicit instruction in the multiple areas of literacy (e.g., comprehension, phonics, vocabulary),
as they often struggle to master so-called prerequisite skills, such as phonemic awareness
(Afacan et al., 2018). Consequently, students with extensive support needs most often are
provided instruction on “functional” literacy skills with a heavy focus on sight word and
vocabulary related to activities of daily living and community safety (Browder, Wakeman,
Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006; Kliewer et al., 2004). Such narrow, functional
approaches to literacy instruction do not provide a learning environment rich in opportunities to
engage with and communicate about text (Courtade, Lingo, & Whitney, 2013).
Research on literacy instruction has demonstrated the inadequacy of the reading readiness
and functional reading approaches, in that they fail to account for the breadth of literacy skills
students with extensive support needs can learn when provided with quality comprehensive
literacy instruction (Afacan et al., 2018). The National Reading Panel, a multi-disciplinary group
created by the United States Congress to identify effective approaches to teaching reading to
students, has identified five central components of reading instruction: phonics, phonemic
awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension (National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development, 2000). Based on their findings, a quality, comprehensive, literacy
instructional program must include instruction in each of these components. Comprehensive
literacy instruction integrates multiple components of literacy within meaningful instructional
activities and interactions with text rather than isolated, single component skill instruction (Allor,
Mathes, Roberts, & Champlin, 2010). From these findings, the emergent literacy perspective
(Sénéchal, LeFevre, Smith-Chant, & Colton, 2001; Sulzby & Teale, 1985) and the importance of
multi-component literacy instruction have become more prevalent, resulting in increased access
to effective literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs (Afacan et al., 2018.;
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
6
Allor et al., 2010; Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Flowers, & Baker, 2012). Researchers examining
emergent literacy have described how reading, writing, and speaking develop simultaneously and
are influenced by the learner’s surroundings (Justice & Pullen, 2003). This constructivist
learning approach has prompted the research community and teachers alike to create learning
environments rich in text, writing, and language to provide students with more opportunities to
develop strong literacy skills (Rohde, 2015; Sulzby & Teale, 1985).
While the findings of the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, 2000) are not specifically directed toward reading instruction for students
with extensive support needs, their recommendations frequently are referenced when describing
literacy interventions for this population (e.g., Browder, Root, Wood, & Allison, 2017).
Comprehensive literacy instruction for all students should include concurrent, systematic
instruction in each of the literacy components identified by the National Reading Panel using
evidence based instructional strategies (Allor et al., 2010). Some research-based literacy
strategies for students with extensive support needs include: (a) time delay and systematic
prompting (Browder et al., 2006), (b) shared story reading (Hudson & Test, 2011), (c) repeated
reading (Hua et al., 2012), (d) graphic organizers (Browder et al., 2017), and (e) adapted age
appropriate texts (Kurth & Keegan, 2014). Contemporary research has established support for
multi-component literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs (Afacan et al.,
2018).
The Problem: Lack of Literacy Research Conducted in Inclusive Settings
While research has identified the importance of comprehensive literacy instruction for
students with extensive support needs (Allor et al., 2010; Browder et al., 2012), there remains a
need to investigate its efficacy in general education settings (Afacan et al., 2018), given the
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
7
established benefits of inclusive education for students with extensive support needs. For
example, researchers have associated inclusive education with: (a) higher learning expectations;
(b) increased engagement, participation, social interactions, and access to general education
curriculum; (c) and improved academic, communication, and social skills (Ruppar, Fisher,
Olson, & Orlando, 2018; Sauer & Jorgensen, 2016). Inclusive service delivery also has been
shown to improve adult outcomes, such as post-secondary education, employment and general
independence (Ryndak, Alper, Hughes, & McDonnell, 2012). While some argue that a separate
self-contained setting is necessary to provide effective individualized supports to students with
extensive support needs (see Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; Kauffman & Bader, 2016), empirical
research consistently has shown students with extensive support needs can acquire higher levels
of academic skills, including literacy skills, in general education settings (de Graaf & van Hove,
2015; Dessemontet, Bless, & Morin, 2012). Additionally, students with extensive support needs
served in general education settings are 10 times more likely to be exposed to academic literacy
instruction than students in separate self-contained special education settings (Ruppar et al.,
2018). Buckley, Bird, Sacks, and Archer (2006) conducted a comparative study of adolescents
with Down syndrome taught in special education schools and in general education classrooms.
Their findings indicate higher growth in expressive language and literacy skills for students
educated in general education classes than those in special education schools. The demonstrated
benefits of inclusive education on progress in literacy skills and access to instruction as well as
instruction on the general education curriculum should be a significant prompt for increased
research on literacy instruction in general education settings (Browder et. al. 2017; Mims,
Hudson, & Browder, 2012).
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
8
Responding to this need for improved research on inclusive instructional practices,
researchers have identified strategies for implementing literacy instruction in general education
settings. For example, embedded instruction (i.e., providing targeted instruction within the
typical classroom routines) has been investigated to support literacy instruction in general
education settings (see Johnson & McDonnell, 2004). Other research-based inclusive strategies
include embedding (a) adapted general education materials to support acquisition and use of
literacy skills (Copeland, Hughes, Agran, Wehmeyer, & Fowler, 2002), (b) shared story reading
(Courtade et al., 2013), and (c) time delay (Ruppar et al., 2017). While research is beginning to
inform teachers about embedding effective literacy instruction into general education settings for
students with extensive support needs, a great deal more research is needed to firmly establish
evidence-based practices. For this reason, we call on the research community to commit to the
exploration of effective literacy instruction in general education settings for all students,
especially for students with extensive support needs.
A Call to Action
Although research in the past several years has identified effective literacy instruction for
students with extensive support needs, the setting of this research has remained primarily in self-
contained special education classrooms. Considering the positive impact of inclusive education
on outcomes for students with extensive support needs, their need for effective literacy
instruction, and the emerging strategies for teaching students with extensive support needs in
general education settings, an urgent need exists to identify strategies for providing multi-
component literacy instruction to students with extensive support needs in general education
settings.
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
9
We propose two broad research areas that need to be examined to generate a body of
research on inclusive literacy instruction that is useful to practitioners. First, there is a need to
expand on what we know already about effective and promising practices for promoting literacy
skill acquisition for students with extensive support needs when they are in general education
classes. Second and lastly, there is a need for a body of evidence on how teachers can plan for
and design effective literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs in ways that
are consistent with the themes, lessons, and activities occurring within general education classes.
These are described in more detail within the subsequent sections.
Building a Research Base for Inclusive Literacy Instruction Classroom Practices
A synthesis of recent literature on effective literacy instruction for k-12 students with
extensive support needs including a focus on instruction within general education settings is
needed to provide the field with clear directions for future research by identifying evidence-
based and promising practices as well as identifying gaps in the research. This literature review
should identify the characteristics of effective literacy instruction for students with extensive
support needs, including a description of the setting, variables such as instructional practices,
interventionists, instructional content, student engagement, and student outcomes. The last
published comprehensive review of literacy instructional strategies for K-12 students with
extensive support needs was in 2006 (Browder et al.). While more recent literature reviews exist
on specific instructional strategies and interventions (Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Spooner, Mims,
& Baker, 2009; Hudson & Test, 2011), age groups (Copeland, McCord, & Kruger, 2016; Roberts
et al., 2013), single components of literacy instruction (Hill, 2016; Joseph & Konrad, 2009), and
multi-component literacy instruction (Afacan et al. 2018), a broad contemporary literature
review would provide directions for future research by identifying: (a) instructional strategies
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
10
that have had promising results in general education settings and that need further research to be
considered evidence-based and (b) instructional strategies that have not yet been investigated in
general education settings.
There is an urgent need to determine if, and how, evidence- or research-based practices
determined to be effective in separate self-contained settings could be used or altered to be
effective in general education settings. Such interventions might include: shared reading (Hudson
& Test, 2011); prompting methods, such as time delay (Mims et al., 2012); modified general
education texts (Mims et al., 2012; Roberts & Leko, 2013), task analysis for instruction
(Browder, Lee, & Mims, 2011); and peer assisted learning (Carter, 2017; Mastropieri et al.,
2001). While these and other instructional strategies have a research base that supports their
implementation in separate self-contained settings, they might need to be adapted to be effective
in general education environments. The extent of such adaptations is not clear, however, without
research occurring in general education settings.
It is particularly important that future research on literacy instruction in general education
settings include students with extensive support needs who also have complex communication
needs. Students with complex communication needs are students who communicate nonverbally
or through the use of high-tech, low-tech, or no-tech augmentative and alternative
communication devices (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013; Orlando & Scherba de Valenzuela,
2018). This group of students is at increased risk of being educated in separate self-contained
settings and denied access to comprehensive literacy instruction, with teachers reporting that
they lack the knowledge necessary to make general education literacy content accessible to their
students with more intensive communication support needs (Machalicek et al., 2010; Ruppar,
Dymond, & Gaffney, 2011). Barriers to inclusive literacy instruction for students with extensive
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
11
support needs who have complex communication needs may be addressed by increasing the
knowledge of effective literacy instruction practices for this population through high-quality
research (Downing, 2005; Zascavage & Keefe, 2004).
Building a Research Base for Planning and Preparation for Inclusive Literacy Instruction
Efficient planning and preparation for literacy instruction in general education is required
to provide guidance for teachers who are struggling to implement literacy instruction in general
education settings that include students with extensive support needs. Barriers that special
education teachers have shared include the lack of time, willingness, and knowledge to
collaborate for, plan, and prepare materials for effective literacy instruction in general education
settings (Matzen, Ryndak, & Nakao, 2010; Roberts et al., 2013; Ruppar et al., 2011). Research is
needed to systematically investigate and address each of these identified barriers. The
importance of general and special education teacher collaboration has been documented (Agran,
Alper, & Wehmeyer, 2002; Leko, Brownell, Sindelar, & Kiely, 2015). However, there are few
systematic studies that investigate collaborative planning and material preparation strategies
(Kurth & Keegan, 2014; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2001). Research addressing these barriers might
promote planning and preparation strategies that facilitate multi-component literacy instruction
in general education settings.
There is also a need for research implemented by teachers rather than researchers to
ensure that an intervention could be easily implemented by a typical special or general educator.
Teacher-implemented research would support efforts to ensure interventions have social validity,
assuring that teachers feel they have the time and resources to prepare for and implement specific
multi-component literacy instruction in general education settings for students with extensive
support needs. While research on multi-component literacy interventions that are implemented
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
12
by teachers with the presence of a researcher for data collection are vulnerable to teacher
adaptation (i.e., the Hawthorn Effect; Ledford, Lane, & Gast, 2018), researchers can minimize
the effect of an outside research team on student and teacher behavior by promoting school staff
as primary interventionists and data collectors. Such designs would be a true test of the social
validity of interventions and support teachers to engage in data collection that drives their
instruction.
Conclusion
This call to action highlights areas of research that are needed to improve knowledge
about literacy instruction in general education settings for students with extensive support needs.
It is imperative that the research community identify evidence-based methods for embedding
multi-component literacy instruction in general education settings for students with extensive
support needs and that this research is embedded in both pre- and in-service teacher
development efforts if we are to ensure the provision of efficacious literacy instruction for all
students.
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
13
References
Afacan, K., Wilkerson, K. L., & Ruppar, A. L. (2018). Multicomponent reading interventions for
students with intellectual disability. Remedial and Special Education, 39, 229-
242. doi:10.1177/0741932517702444
Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students
with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123-133.
Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Jones, F. G., & Champlin, T. M. (2010). Teaching
students with moderate intellectual disabilities to read: An experimental examination of a
comprehensive reading intervention. Education and Training in Autism and
Developmental Disabilities, 45, 3-22.
Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative and alternative communication:
Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (4th ed.). Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes
Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., & Baker, J. (2012). An evaluation of a
multicomponent early literacy program for students with severe developmental
disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 237-246.
doi:10.1177/0741932510387305
Browder, D., 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, 343-364. doi:10.1177/001440290907500305
Browder, D. M., Lee, A., & Mims, P. (2011). Using shared stories and individual response
modes to promote comprehension and engagement in literacy for students with multiple,
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
14
severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46,
339-351.
Browder, D. M., Root, J. R., Wood, L., & Allison, C. (2017). Effects of a story-mapping
procedure using the iPad on the comprehension of narrative texts by students with autism
spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 32, 243-255.
doi:10.1177/1088357615611387
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. doi:10.1177/001440290607200401
Buckley S., Bird G., Sacks B. & Archer A. (2006) A comparison of mainstream and special
education for teenagers with Down syndrome: Implications for parents and teachers.
Down Syndrome Research and Practice 9, 54–67. doi:10.3104/reports.295
Carter, E. W. (2017). The promise and practice of peer support arrangements for students with
intellectual and developmental disabilities. International Review of Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 52, 141-174. doi:10.1016/bs.irrdd.2017.04.001
Cihak, D. F., Wright, R., Smith, C. C., McMahon, D., & Kraiss, K. (2015). Incorporating
functional digital literacy skills as part of the curriculum for high school students with
intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities,
50, 155-171.
Copeland, S. R., Hughes, C., Agran, M., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Fowler, S. E. (2002). An
intervention package to support high school students with mental retardation in general
education classrooms. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107, 32-45.
doi:10.1352/0895-8017(2002)107<0032:AIPTSH>2.0.CO;2
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
15
Copeland, S. R., McCord, J. A., & Kruger, A. (2016). A review of literacy interventions for
adults with extensive needs for supports. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60,
173-184. doi:10.1002/jaal.548
Courtade, G. R., Lingo, A. S., & Whitney, T. (2013). Using story-based lessons to increase
academic engaged time in general education classes for students with moderate
intellectual disability and autism. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 32, 3-14.
doi:10.1177/875687051303200402
de Graaf, G., & Van Hove, G. (2015). Learning to read in regular and special schools: A follow
up study of students with Down Syndrome. Life Span and Disability, 18, 7-39.
Dessemontet, R. S., Bless, G., & Morin, D. (2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic
achievement and adaptive behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 579-587. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01497.x
Downing, J. E. (2005). Inclusive education for high school students with severe intellectual
disabilities: Supporting communication. Augmentative and Alternative
Communication, 21, 132-148. doi:10.1080/07434610500103582
Downing, J. E. (2007). Teaching literacy to students with significant disabilities strategies for
the K-12 inclusive classroom. Vancouver, Canada: Langara College.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017)
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016).
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and radicalization of special
education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294–309. doi:10.1177/
001440299406000402
Hill, D. R. (2016). Phonics based reading interventions for students with intellectual disability: A
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
16
systematic literature review. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4, 205-214.
doi:10.11114/jets.v4i5.1472
Hua, Y., Hendrickson, J. M., Therrien, W. J., Woods-Groves, S., Ries, P. S., & Shaw, J. J.
(2012). Effects of combined reading and question generation on reading fluency and
comprehension of three young adults with autism and intellectual disability. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 27, 135-146.
doi:10.1177/1088357612448421
Hudson, M. E., & Browder, D. M. (2014). Improving listening comprehension responses for
students with moderate intellectual disability during literacy class. Research and Practice
for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39, 11–29. doi:10.1177/1540796914534634
Hudson, M. E., & Test, D. W. (2011). Evaluating the evidence base of shared story reading to
promote literacy for students with extensive support needs. Research and Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 34-45. doi:10.2511/rpsd.36.1-2.34
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U, S, C, § 1400 et seq.
(2004).
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, 46-63.
Joseph, L. M., & Konrad, M. (2009). Teaching students with intellectual or developmental
disabilities to write: A review of the literature. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 30, 1-19. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2008.01.001
Justice, L. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2003). Promising interventions for promoting emergent literacy
skills: Three evidence-based approaches. Teaching Early Childhood Special Education,
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
17
23, 99–113. doi:10.1177/02711214030230030101
Kauffman, J. M., & Badar, J. (2016). It’s instruction over place—not the other way around!. Phi
Delta Kappan, 98, 55-59. doi:10.1177/0031721716681778
Keefe, E. B., & Copeland, S. R. (2011). What is literacy? The power of a definition. Research
and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 92-99.
doi:10.2511/027494811800824507
Kleinert, H., Towles-Reeves, E., Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., Fluegge, L., Weseman, L., &
Kerbel, A. (2015). Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are
taught implications for general curriculum access. Exceptional Children, 81, 312-328.
doi:10.1177/0014402914563697.
Kliewer, C., Fitzgerald, L. M., Meyer-Mork, J., Hartman, P., English-Sand, P., & Raschke, D.
(2004). Citizenship for all in the literate community: An ethnography of young children
with significant disabilities in inclusive early childhood settings. Harvard Educational
Review, 74, 373-403. doi:10.17763/haer.74.4.p46171013714642x
Kurth, J. A., & Keegan, L. (2014). Development and use of curricular adaptations for students
receiving special education services. The Journal of Special Education, 48, 191-203.
doi:10.1177/0022466912464782
Ledford, J. R., Lane, J. D., & Gast, D. L. (2018). Dependent variables, measurement, and
reliability. In J. R. Ledord & D. L. Gast (Eds.), Single case research methodology:
Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed., pp. 97-131). New
York, NY: Routledge.
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
18
Leko, M. M., Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., & Kiely, M. T. (2015). Envisioning the future of
special education personnel preparation in a standards-based era. Exceptional Children,
82, 25-43. doi:10.1177/0014402915598782
Machalicek, W., Sanford, A., Lang, R., Rispoli, M., Molfenter, N., & Mbeseha, M. K. (2010).
Literacy interventions for students with physical and developmental disabilities who use
aided AAC devices: A systematic review. Journal of Developmental and Physical
Disabilities, 22, 219-240. doi:10.1007/s10882-009-9175-3
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2001). Promoting inclusion in secondary
classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 265-274. doi:10.2307/1511115
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Mohler, L., Beranek, M., Boon, R., Spencer, V., & Talbott,
E. (2001). Can middle school students with serious reading difficulties help each other
and learn anything? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 18-27.
doi:10.1111/0938-8982.00003
Matzen, K., Ryndak, D., & Nakao, T. (2010). Middle school teams increasing access to general
education for students with significant disabilities: Issues encountered and activities
observed across contexts. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 287-304.
doi:10.1177/0741932508327457
Mims, P. J., Hudson, M. E., & Browder, D. M. (2012). Using read-alouds of grade-level
biographies and systematic prompting to promote comprehension for students with
moderate and severe developmental disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 27, 67-80. doi:10.1177/1088357612446859
Mirenda, P. (2003). “He's not really a reader…”: Perspectives on supporting literacy
development in individuals with autism. Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 271-282.
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
19
doi:10.1097/00011363-200310000-00003
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: Government Printing
Office. Retrieved from NICHD website:
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf
Orlando, A., & Scherba de Valenzuela, J. (2018). Developing language and communication.
In S. R. Copeland & E. B. Keefe (Eds.), Effective literacy instruction for learners with
complex support needs (2nd ed., pp. 21-34). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Roberts, C. A., & Leko, M. M. (2013). Integrating functional and academic goals into literacy
instruction for adolescents with significant cognitive disabilities through shared story
reading. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38, 157-172. doi:
10.1177/154079691303800303
Roberts, C. A., Leko, M. M., & Wilkerson, K. L. (2013). New directions in reading instruction
for adolescents with significant cognitive disabilities. Remedial and Special Education,
34, 305-317. doi:10.1177/0741932513485447
Rohde, L. (2015). The comprehensive emergent literacy model: Early literacy in context. SAGE
Open, 5, 1-11. doi:10.1177/2158244015577664.
Ruppar, A. L., Afacan, K., Yang, Y., & Pickett, K. J. (2017). Embedded shared reading to
increase literacy in an inclusive English/language arts class: Preliminary efficacy and
ecological validity. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, 52, 51-63.
LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION
20
Ruppar, A. L., Dymond, S. K., & Gaffney, J. S. (2011). Teachers' perspectives on literacy
instruction for students with severe disabilities who use augmentative and alternative
communication. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 100-
111. doi:10.2511/027494811800824435
Ruppar, A., Fisher, K. W., Olson, A. J., & Orlando, A. M. (2018). Exposure to literacy for
students eligible for the alternate assessment. Education and Training in Autism and
Developmental Disabilities, 53, 192-208.
Ryndak, D. L., Alper, S., Hughes, C., & McDonnell, J. (2012). Documenting impact of
educational contexts on long-term outcomes for students with significant
disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 127-138.
Sauer, J., & Jorgensen, C. M. (2016). Still caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of least
restrictive environment and its effect on placement of students with intellectual disability.
Inclusion, 4, 56-74. doi:10.1352/2326-6988-4.2.56
Sénéchal, M., LeFevre, J. A., Smith-Chant, B. L., & Colton, K. V. (2001). On refining
theoretical models of emergent literacy the role of empirical evidence. Journal of School
Psychology, 39, 439-460. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00081-4
Sulzby, E. & Teale, W. H. (1985). Writing development in early childhood. Educational
Horizons, 64, 8-12.
Zascavage, V. T., & Keefe, C. H. (2004). Students with severe speech and physical impairments:
Opportunity barriers to literacy. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 19, 223-234. doi:10.1177/10883576040190040401
