etadd_47(3) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sub-Saharan Africa. American Annals of the Deaf, 148, 18–24. Kristensen, K., Omagor-Loican, M., & Onen, N. (2003). The inclusion of learners with barriers to learning and development into ordinary school settings: A challenge for Uganda. British Journal of Special Education, 30, 194–201. Marsh, C. J. (1997). Key conepts for understanding curriculum: Planning, management, and ideology (Vol. 2). London: The Falmer Press. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Ministry of Labour Youth Development and Sports. (2004). National policy on disability. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: United Republic of Tanzania. The National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) Home Page. (2008). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/ Nietupski, J., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Curtin, S., & Shirkanth, K. (1997). A review of curricular research in severe disabilities from 1976 to 1995 in six selected journals. Journal of Special Education, 31, 36–55. 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 practice. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148. Patton, J. R., Cronin, M. E., & Jairrels, V. (1997). Curricular implications of transition: Life skills as an integral part of transition education. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 294–306. Peters, S. J. (1993). An ideological-cultural framework for the study of disability. In S. J. Peters (Ed.), Education and disability in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 19–35). New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., Smith, J. D., & Roderique, T. W. (1991). Issues in program design for elementary students with mild retardation: Emphasis on curriculum development. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 142–150. Rogoff, B., Moore, L., Najafi, B., Dexter, A., Correa- Chavez, M., & Solis, J. (2007). Children’s development of cultural repetroires through participation in everyday routines and practices. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research. New York: The Guilford Press. Schmalle, B., & Retish, P. M. (1989). Job-task reporting system. Teaching Exceptional Children, 21, 14– 18. Shemweta, M. (2008). Master’s Thesis. Makumira University, Usa River, Tanzania. Snell, M. E. (1997). Teaching young children and young adults with mental retardation in school programs: Current research. Behavior Change, 14, 73–105. Stone-MacDonald, A. (2010). From Goats to Gardens: Preparing Children with Developmental Disabilities for Community Integration in Rural Tanzania. Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. United Republic of Tanzania. (2003). 2002 Population and housing census. Retrieved from http:// www.tanzania.go.tz/census/census/reports.htm Westling, D. L., & Fox, L. (2000). Teaching students with severe disabilities. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Received: 9 August 2011 Initial Acceptance: 12 October 2011 Final Acceptance: 14 December 2011 268 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2012
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2012, <strong>47</strong>(3), 269–279 © <strong>Division</strong> on Autism and Developmental Disabilities Two Approaches to Phonics Instruction: Comparison of Effects with Children with Significant Cognitive Disability Elizabeth Grace Finnegan St. Thomas Aquinas College Abstract: The effects of two systematic methods of phonics instruction for children with significant cognitive disability were compared. Fifty-two participants, aged 5–12 years were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: (i) a synthetic phonics instruction, (ii) an analogy phonics instruction group, and (iii) a control group. Participants in the synthetic and analogy phonics groups received twelve sessions of individual instruction. Findings suggest that for many students with significant cognitive disability systematic phonics instruction is beneficial. Further research should focus on the maintenance and generalization of phonics skills acquired by children with significant cognitive disability. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA, 2004), a small percentage of children with disabilities take alternate assessments instead of the general statewide assessment. These students are defined as students with significant cognitive disability (IDEA, 2004). Research on how best to teach core academic subjects to this population is sparse. Existing research shows that students with significant cognitive disability can learn and acquire new skills (Browder, Fallin, Davis, & Karvonen, 2003). However, research is still needed to substantiate which methods of instruction are effective in enabling students with significant cognitive disability to meet standards in academic subjects such as reading and mathematics. This study compared the effects of two approaches to phonics instruction in teaching children with significant cognitive disability to read. This research was conducted while Elizabeth Grace Finnegan was a student in Department of Health and Behavioral Studies, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York as part of her dissertation requirements. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elizabeth Grace Finnegan, St. Thomas Aquinas College, 125 Route 340, Sparkill, NY10976. Email: efinnegan@ stac.edu Effectiveness of Phonics Instruction Explicit, systematic instruction in phonics has been established as being beneficial for students in the beginning stages of reading and for students with difficulties learning to read (Chall, 1996; National Reading Panel, NRP, 2000). Hoover and Gough (1990) proposed that “decoding” skills and linguistic comprehension need to be dissociated in order for children to gain substantial skills in either, but for reading to be effective they need to be combined. Ehri, Nunes, Stahl and Willows (2001) found all methods of phonics instruction to be effective but systematic methods have been found to be more effective than methods than were not, with synthetic instruction having the largest effect (d 0.45). There are many reasons why phonics instruction has not been an integral part of reading instruction for children with significant cognitive disability. Three of those reasons, institutional beliefs, historical exclusion from research studies, and strength of literature supporting sight word instruction, will be discussed. Institutional Beliefs Within the educational community there are a number of institutional beliefs that have shaped reading instruction for children with significant cognitive disability. A belief that children with cognitive disability were not ca- Effects of Systematic Phonics / 269
Page 1 and 2: Education and Training in Autism an
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: Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K.
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 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 95 and 96:
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 109 and 110:
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 and 120:
was repeated across all participant
Page 121 and 122:
Boning, R. A. (1997). SRA Specific
Page 123 and 124:
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 139 and 140:
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
Page 151 and 152:
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?