Module 1 of 6 Introduction to Teaching Literacy to Students with Cognitive Disabilities

1. Module 1 of 6 Introduction to Teaching Literacy to Students with Cognitive Disabilities Recommended citation: Assessing Special Education Students SCASS (AA-AAS Study Group), 2008. Introduction to teaching literacy to students with cognitive disabilities. Washington, D.C., Council of Chief State School Officers

2. Modules developed by Special Education Research Consultants under the direction of Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell, Ph.D. with contributions by: • Tracie-Lynn Zakas, M.Ed. • Shawnee Wakeman, Ph.D. • Pamela Mims, M.Ed. • Katherine Trela, ABD • Ella Glass and • ASES SCASS AA-AAS Study Group Members

3. Content of the Modules Module 1 - Introduction to Teaching Literacy to Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities (SSCD)* • Why we teach academics • Summary of current research and evidence-based practices • National Reading Panel (2000) & Put Reading First (2003) recommendations • Theoretical foundation for literacy instruction • Universal Design for Learning * Within these modules, SSCD refers to students with significant cognitive disabilities

4. Content of the Modules Module 2 – Literacy Development and Symbolic Communication • Stages of literacy development • Phonemic awareness and phonics skills • Levels of communication skills used by students with significant disabilities • Embedding Alternative and Augmentative Communication (AAC) devices

5. Content of the Modules Module 3 - Elementary grade level literature • Elements of a story-based lesson (SBL) for elementary students • Ideas for adaptation of grade level books & using Alternative and Augmentative Communication (AAC) devices Module 4 - Middle and high school literacy • Elements of a story-based lesson (SBL) for middle/ secondary students • Adapting grade level books & using Alternative and Augmentative Communication (AAC) devices

6. Content of the Modules Module 5 - Literacy in the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) • Lesson planning. • Standards-based IEPs. • Developing literacy lessons that align with general education content standards. Module 6 – Families • What is literacy and why it is important. • Literacy activities families can do at home. • Homework.

7. Purpose of the Modules • Provide direction to educators in teaching literacy skills to students with significant cognitive disabilities (SSCD). • States add eligibility criteria here.

8. IDEA Mandates • IDEA (1997) first mentioned access to the general curriculum and alternate assessments. • IDEA (2004) on Access to the General Curriculum. Evaluation procedures include information about involvement and progress in gen ed curriculum §614(d)(1)(A)(i)(II)(aa).

9. IDEA Mandates • IEP includes information on how the disability affects involvement and progress in gen ed curriculum (§614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)(aa)) • Revise IEP to address lack of expected progress in gen ed curriculum (§614(d)(4)(A)(ii)(I))

10. No Child Left Behind of 2001 • Schools accountable for ALL students, including students with disabilities (34 CFR §200.13(b)(7)(C)) • Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in Language Arts/reading, math, and science (34 CFR §200.2(a)(1)) • Up to 1% of students in alternate achievement standards can be counted as proficient (34 CFR §200.13(c)(1)(i)) • Alternate assessments are aligned to grade-level academic content expectations (34 CFR §200.6(a)(3)(ii)(A))

11. Historical Curricular Changes in Special Education* * Adapted from Browder, Flowers, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Karvonen, Spooner & Algozzine, 2004 • 1970s - “Developmental Model” for infant and early childhood curriculum, developmental stages, mental age • 1980s - Functional life skills curriculum • Skills necessary for day-to-day living • Principals of normalization

12. Historical Curricular Changes in Special Education (con’t.) • 1990s - Social inclusion & self-determination. • 2000s - General curriculum access, academic content, and alternate assessment. Includes functional skills, social inclusion & self determination still important.

13. What Teachers Need to Implement General Curriculum Access Understand what it means to teach general curriculum content aligned to grade level standards (Module 5) Examples of interventions to use for planning instruction (Modules 3 & 4) State examples of what they think teachers to implement state policy/practices

14. What Teachers Need to Implement General Curriculum Access (con’t.) Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade, Gibbs, Mraz, & Flowers, in press Validation that academic goals and outcomes are valued and meaningful to students and their parents • Relevance of the skills and how they can be applied in real life contexts • Students may need longer to acquire these skills and may master less content over the course of their education

15. Why We Should Teach Academics SSCD have not had the opportunity to learn • Previously held low expectations for SSCD prevented us from teaching academics (Downing, 2006) • When given expectations of becoming literate, students can become literate (Katims & Biklen, 2001) • Previous lack of focus on reading for SSCD in teacher prep textbooks (Katims, 2000) • Difficulty of making literacy materials accessible to SSCD results in fewer opportunities (Koppenhaver & Yoder, 1993)

16. Why We Should Teach Academics (con’t.) *Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade-Little, & Snell, 2006 Students and their families value academics* Academics can also be functional Double standard; students without intellectual disabilities do not have to master functional skills to be eligible to learn to read

17. Why Teach Literacy? Browder, Gibbs, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade, Mraz, & Flowers, in press. • Allows SSCD opportunities to experience same rich reading experiences as their peers • Literature provides information and ideas SSCD may not access in other ways • smaller social spheres • fewer life experiences • Even if students do not become independently literate, reading can be fun

18. Why Teach Literacy? (con’t.) Literacy skills learned early can be applied to learning core content materials later such as science, civics, etc. Literacy skills can have functional applications such as reading Want Ads, filling out job applications, making a grocery list or following a daily schedule

19. State Policies and Practices Blank slide for states to insert specific relevant policy or practices related to aligning grade level content in reading/language arts

20. The Science of Reading Five essential components for learning to read (National Reading Panel, 2000) • Phonemic awareness - producing individual letter sounds, syllabication, segmentation, blending, rhymes • Phonics - Pairing sounds with letter-sound association and using this knowledge to decode unknown words • Vocabulary - Individual words easily read and comprehended • Comprehension of text - Understanding meaning of passages of text • Fluency with use of symbols/words - Rate and accuracy of reading words

21. Put Reading First (2003) • Concentrate on only 1-2 types of phoneme manipulation when teaching phonemic awareness • Blending and segmenting recommended • Use letters when manipulating letter sounds • Systematic and explicit phonics instruction makes a significant contribution to children's growth in reading

22. Reading Studies with SSCD1975 – 2005 Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell & Algozzine (2006)

23. Literature Review Findings • Most of the research focused on learning sight words (vocabulary) • Effective instruction of sight words using • massed trials • systematic prompting and fading • Comprehension of the sight words occurred in 1/4 of the studies • Students memorized words, but not meaning • Few studies taught phonemic awareness or phonics needed in order to learn to read

24. Evidence SSCD Can Learn Phonemic Awareness & Phonics • Acquisition of letter-sound correspondences(Hoogeveen, Smeets, & Lancioni, 1989; Hoogeveen Smeets, & van der Houven, 1987) • Increase in: reading sounds, blending sounds into words, and word reading(Bracey, Maggs, & Morath, 1975) • Decrease in word recognition errors using phonic analysis and error correction(Singh & Singh, 1985; Singh & Singh, 1988) • Used Corrective Reading program to teach decoding(Bradform, Shippen, Alberto, Houchins, & Flores, 2006)

25. Translating the “Science” for Students Who Are SSCD & Non-verbal • Current practices for teaching these skills requires verbal fluency • For SSCD who are nonverbal • We need to translate these skills for use with AAC devices • Various adaptations for nonverbal responding (See Module 2) • Fluency may not be applicable to students with physical or oral motor difficulties

26. Model for Literacy Instruction for Students with Severe Disabilities Browder, Gibbs, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade, Mraz & Flowers (in press) • This conceptual model of literacy instruction is the guide used throughout the modules as a theoretical basis for providing literacy instruction • Two components • Increased Independence as a Reader • Lifelong Access to Literature

27. Increased Independenceas a Reader • Focus on learning to read in elementary grades using phonics instruction adapted for student responding (Module 2) • Explicit phonics instruction • Focus on functional application of reading in middle/secondary adapted for student responding (Module 4) • Phonics instruction occurs in the context of a reading activity

28. Lifelong Access to Literature Focus for all students to access age and grade-level appropriate literature continues throughout life (Module 4) • Type of material changes • Level of abstraction changes • Type of reading activity changes

29. Universal Design for Learning* *Center for Applied Technology, 1999. • Provides jumping off place for us to begin thinking about adapting and modifying grade level curriculum for SSCD • Calls for flexibility in curriculum for ALL students by means of: • Representation • Expression • Engagement

30. Flexible Representation Alternative modes to present information • Reduce perceptual barriers • Digital text that can be altered in size, color etc, • Audio with captions • Adding images/graphics • Reduce cognitive barriers • Summaries of “Big ideas” • Providing background knowledge and links to prior learning • Embedding applied behavior analysis based instructional strategies in lessons

31. Flexible Expression Center for Applied Technology, 1999. • Alternative modes to demonstrate learning • Reduce physical barriers • Alternatives to pencil and paper • Alternatives to verbal barriers • Reduce cognitive barriers • Conspicuous learning strategies

32. Flexible Engagement Center for Applied Technology, 1999. • Alternative modes for SSCD to participate in the learning environment • Consideration of individual culture, experience, motivation • Flexible alternatives for • Balancing support and challenge • Balancing novelty and familiarity • Balancing age-relevant and cultural interests • Student input into curricular materials

33. Covered in Module One: • Why we teach academics • Summary of current research and evidence-based practices • National Reading Panel (2000) & Put Reading First (2003) recommendations • Theoretical foundation for literacy instruction • Universal Design for Learning

34. References • Bracey, S., Maggs, A., & Morath. P. (1975). The effects of direct phonics approach in teaching reading to six moderately retarded children: Acquisition and mastery learning stages. Exceptional Child, 22, 83-90. • Bradford, S., Shippen. M., Alberto, P., Houchins, D., & Flores, M. (2006). Using systematic instruction to teach decoding skills to middle school students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41,323-324. • Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C. (2004). Parent Survey on the Impact of Alternate Assessment. Unpublished manuscript.

35. References (con’t.) • Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade-Little, G., & Snell, M. (2006). General Curriculum Access. InM. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction for students with severe disabilities (6th ed., pp.489-525). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. • Browder, D. Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, B. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content with academic and functional curricula. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 211-223. • Browder, D. Gibbs, S. Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G., Mraz, & Flowers, C. (in press). Literacy for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: What Should We Teach and What Should We Hope to Achieve? Remedial and Special Education.

36. References (con’t.) Browder, D., & Spooner, F. (Eds.) (2006). Teaching language arts, math & science to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Browder D. Wakeman, S. Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392-408. Brown, L., Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1976). Criterion of ultimate functioning. In M. A. Thomas (Ed.), Hey, don’t forget about me! Education’s investment in the severely, profoundly, and multiply handicapped (pp. 2-15). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

37. References (con’t.) 37 Center for Applied Special Technology [CAST]. (1999). Three essential qualities for universal design for learning. Retrieved February 27, 2003, from http://www.cec.sped.org/osep/appendix.html Brown, L., Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1976). Criterion of ultimate functioning. In M. A. Thomas (Ed.), Hey, don’t forget about me! Education’s investment in the severely, profoundly, and multiply handicapped (pp. 2-15). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Center for Applied Special Technology [CAST]. (1999). Three essential qualities for universal design for learning. Retrieved February 27, 2003, from http://www.cec.sped.org/osep/appendix.html

38. References (con’t.) Downing, J. (2006). Building literacy for students at the presymbolic and early symbolic levels. In D. Browder & F. Spooner (Eds.), Teaching language arts, math and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp.39-92). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Hoogeveen, J. Smeets, P., & Lancioni, G. (1989). Teaching moderately mentally retarded children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10, 1-18. Hoogeveen, F. R., Smeets, P. M., & van der Houven, J. E. (1987). Establishing letter-sound correspondences in children classified as trainable mentally retarded. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 22, 77-84. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.

39. References (con’t.) Katims, D. S. (2000). Literacy instruction for people with mental retardation. Historical highlights and contemporary analysis. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 3-15. Kliewer, C., & Biklen, D. (2001). "School's Not Really a Place for Reading": A Research Synthesis of the Literate Lives of Students with Severe Disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 1-12. Koppenhaver, D. A., & Yoder, D. E. (1993). Classroom literacy instruction for children with severe speech and physical impairments (SSPI): What is and what might be. Topics in Language Disorders, 3(2), -15.

40. References (con’t.) National Institute for Literacy. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/PFRbooklet.pdf National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services [NIH Pub. No. 00-4754]. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

41. References (con’t.) Wehmeyer, M. L., Sands, D. J., Knowlton, H. E., & Kozleski, E. B. (2002). Self-determination: Curriculum augmentation and student involvement. In M. L. Wehmeyer, D. J. Sands, H. E. Knowlton, & E. B. Kozleski, Teaching students with mental retardation: Providing access to the general curriculum (pp.232-251). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Wolfsenberger, W. (1972). Normalization; The principal of normalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute for Mental Retardation.

42. End of Module 1