etadd_47(3) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ticing discussion in relation to texts to increase and support the development of comprehension for older students who struggle with reading. Limitations and Future Research One limitation of this study was the exclusive use of multiple-choice questions as a measure of student comprehension. While the students in this study did prove their ability to accurately respond in a multiple-choice format prior to participation, the complexities involved in using multiple-choice responses to express comprehension could exclude other students with moderate or severe intellectual disability from replicating the effects of the intervention. For instance, one student, who may have benefited from this intervention, was specifically excluded from this study due to her repeated inaccuracy in answering the novel multiple-choice questions. And several other students in the classroom were not recommended for participation by the teacher due to their inconsistency in responding to questions. Future research in this area should focus on an expanded approach for assessing student comprehension of read aloud texts. While two individuals separately reviewed the photo sets to ensure the accuracy of their representative connection to the texts, this evaluation did not sufficiently address the need for consistency in identifying the critical representative concepts of a text or selecting accurate representations from photos. In this study, main ideas and concepts were selected from each story by the first author. These main ideas and concepts were then used as the basis for selecting representative photos. While this process did prove reliably representative among the raters and popular among the students for the short texts used, it may not have the same effect on more elaborate texts (e.g. novels, biographies). Future research should include more precise and formulaic approaches to the process of selecting key themes and representative images for text. The discussion portion of the intervention was loosely based. Sessions began by asking each student to comment on the photos and continued with an unscripted description of each photo followed by a conversation with the student regarding how the photos repre- sented the texts. While the discussion appeared to have a beneficial effect on the student’s comprehension abilities of the texts read aloud, the lack of structure utilized is deemed a limitation in terms of research replication and application in the classroom. Unstructured discussions have the potential to not only vary in methodology and results, but also to detract from the main purpose of the intervention, which is to help students comprehend text read out loud. Future research in the combined picture symbol plus discussion intervention should examine the use of structure interviewing strategies to provide increased consistency in the discussion portion of this intervention. Fifteen short expository and narrative high interest stories were used as the age-appropriate literature in this study. While the content appeared to hold students’ interest and attention, using longer texts such as age-appropriate novels, magazine articles, or newspapers may provide more credibility to the robustness of the present intervention. Future studies using this intervention should explore its effectiveness with longer, more commonly accessed texts such as popular adolescent novels, academic textbooks, or newspapers. Finally, caution should be used when interpreting the results of this study due to the small number of participants involved. While this study contributes to the literature on access for students with moderate intellectual disability to age-appropriate texts, additional research on this particular intervention and as well as variations of it, should be conducted to promote generalizability of these results. References Al Otaiba, S., & Hosp, M. K. (2004). Providing effective literacy instruction to students with down syndrome. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(4), 28–35. Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, 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. Bellon, M. L., Ogletree, B. T., & Harn, W. E. (2000). Repeated storybook reading as a language intervention for children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15, 52–58. 370 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2012
Boning, R. A. (1997). SRA Specific Skills Series: Getting the Main Idea. Book G (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw Hill. Browder, D. M., Mims, P. J., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim- Delzell, L., & Lee, A. (2008). Teaching elementary students with multiple disabilities to participate in shared stories. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33, 3–12. 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 disabilities in grade-appropriate literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 206–219. Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Flowers, C., Rickelman, R. J., Pugalee, D., & Karvonen, M. (2007). Creating access to the general curriculum with links to grade-level content for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 2. Browder, D. M., & Xin, Y. P. (1998). A meta-analysis and review of sight word research and its implications for teaching functional reading to individuals with moderate and severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 130–153. Browder, D., Gibbs, S., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G. R., Mraz, M., & Flowers, C. (2009). Literacy for students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 269– 282. Downing, J. (2005). Teaching literacy to students with significant disabilities: Strategies for the K-12 inclusive classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Erickson, K. A., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (1995). Developing a literacy program for children with severe disabilities. The Reading Teacher, 48, 676–684. Hibbing, A. N., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand words: Using visual images to improve comprehension for middle school struggling readers. The Reading Teacher, 56, 758–770. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160. Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of singlesubject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179. Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and power. New York, NY: Routledge. Joseph, L. M., & McCachran, M. (2003). Comparison of a word study phonics technique between students with moderate to mild mental retardation and struggling readers without disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 192–199. Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston. MA: Pearson Education. Kliewer, C. (1998). Citizenship in the literate community: An ethnography of children with Down syndrome and the written word. Exceptional Children, 64, 167–180. Kliewer, C., Biklen, D., & Kasa-Hendrickson, C. (2006). Who may be literate? Disability and resistance to the cultural denial of competence. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 163–192. Kliewer, C., & Landis, D. (1999). Individualizing literacy instruction for young children with moderate to severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 66, 85–100. Kluth, P., & Darmondy-Latham, J. (2003). Beyond sight words: Literacy opportunities for students with autism. The Reading Teacher, 56, 532–535. Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67, 271–299. Lawhon, T., & Cobb, J. B. (2002). Routines that build emergent literacy skills in infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30, 113–118. Light, J. C., Roberts, B., Dimarco, R., & Greiner, N. (1998). Augmentative and alternative communication to support receptive and expressive communication for people with autism. Journal of Communication Disorders, 31, 153–180. Liu, J. (2004). Effects of comic strips on L2 learners reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 225–243. McGraw Hill. (n.d). SRA Skills Series Brochure. McGraw Hill. Retrieved from https://www.mhe online.com/assets/sra_download/MultipleSkills Series/MoreInfo/SRASkillsSeries_Brochure.pdf Moats, L. (2002). When older students can’t read. L.D. Online. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline. org/article/8025?themeprint Piontek, M. E. (2008). Best practices for designing and grading exams. University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/elbitar/ Instructional%20research/BEST%20PRACTICES %20FOR%20DESIGNING%20AND%20GRADING %20EXAMS.pdf Skotko, B. G., Koppenhaver, D. A., & Erickson, K. A. (2004). Parent reading behaviors and communication outcomes in girls with Rhett syndrome. Exceptional Children, 70, 145–166. Sevcik, R., Romski, M. A., & Wilkinson, K. (1991). Roles of graphic symbols in the language acquisition process for persons with severe cognitive disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 161–170. Slater, J. M. (2002). A pictorial approach for improving literacy skills in students with disabilities: An exploratory research study. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(3), 58–62. Comprehension of Typical Texts / 371
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Autism an
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
ities. Scholars have argued that do
Page 9 and 10:
discussions were held with 12 addit
Page 11 and 12:
TABLE 1 A Sample of Community Funds
Page 13 and 14:
et al., 2007). At the school, stude
Page 15 and 16:
students opportunities to work and
Page 17 and 18:
Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K.
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
of words, and in the short term wer
Page 23 and 24:
TABLE 3 Word Lists List No. Trainin
Page 25 and 26:
TABLE 6 Pairwise Comparisons on Pos
Page 27 and 28:
Word Identification or Word Attack
Page 29 and 30:
erate to severe disabilities. Excep
Page 31 and 32:
ess in a variety of subjects includ
Page 33 and 34:
TABLE 1 Target Vocabulary Words by
Page 35 and 36:
Figure 1. Example of PowerPoint Sli
Page 37 and 38:
TABLE 3 Mean Percentage of Correct
Page 39 and 40:
Figure 4. Jake’s percentages corr
Page 41 and 42:
man-Martin et al. (2005) by demonst
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
used in the study that did not foll
Page 47 and 48:
lected. Stories were read in a quie
Page 49 and 50:
y determining the number of interva
Page 51 and 52:
with the removal of the interventio
Page 53 and 54:
Accordingly, recent research has in
Page 55 and 56:
Method Participants Four male child
Page 57 and 58:
TABLE 2 Play Scale - Developmental
Page 59 and 60:
elated utterances, which were used
Page 61 and 62:
Figure 1. Ian’s Progress in Play
Page 63 and 64:
Figure 3. Ryan’s Progress in Play
Page 65 and 66:
Figure 5. Social Validity: Average
Page 67 and 68:
(2000). A comparison of video model
Page 69 and 70: Education and Training in Autism an
Page 71 and 72: Method Participants Four high schoo
Page 73 and 74: TABLE 1 Task Analyses for all Tasks
Page 75 and 76: Figure 1. Holly multiple baseline g
Page 77 and 78: Figure 3. Norman multiple baseline
Page 79 and 80: ing at photographs. Jake only requi
Page 81 and 82: tion, some aspects of the target be
Page 83 and 84: table video aids may lead to greate
Page 85 and 86: TABLE 2 Task Analyses Including Vid
Page 87 and 88: table.” During the session, the t
Page 89 and 90: Figure 2. Percent of steps with err
Page 91 and 92: ter the 15 th session. With table w
Page 93 and 94: our students, it may have been diff
Page 97 and 98: TABLE 2 Participants Demographic Da
Page 99 and 100: opening of the lesson, the teacher
Page 101 and 102: TABLE 4 Total Number of Items Answe
Page 103 and 104: Figure 2. Total number of procedura
Page 105 and 106: serve both cognitive (e.g., self in
Page 107 and 108: and quasi-experimental designs for
Page 111 and 112: & Cobb, 2002). Generalization, the
Page 113 and 114: academic activities in the classroo
Page 115 and 116: Procedure Baseline. In this multipl
Page 117 and 118: condition for each student. With th
Page 119: was repeated across all participant
Page 125 and 126: TABLE 1 Student demographic informa
Page 127 and 128: ping, dining out, voting) and diffe
Page 129 and 130: TABLE 2 Content Standards, Alternat
Page 131 and 132: Student Achievement Figures 3-6 pro
Page 133 and 134: Figure 4. Student data across math
Page 135 and 136: Figure 6. Student data across math
Page 137 and 138: A second limitation of the current
Page 141 and 142: y students with intellectual disabi
Page 143 and 144: TABLE 1 Studies of Mathematics Inte
Page 145 and 146: subject design to provide an interv
Page 147 and 148: Neef and colleagues (2003) demonstr
Page 149 and 150: abilities. Education and Training i
show all

etadd_47(3) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?