Emergent Literacy Intervention for
Students with Significant Disabilities
Diane M. Browder, PhD
University of North Carolina
Pamela J. Mims
University of North Carolina
Linda R. Schreiber, MS, CCC-SLP
Consulting Editor
11/16/07
Session Overview
• Research from Project RAISE
• Story-based lessons and an extension to
students with profound disabilities
• Using the Early Literacy Skills Builder
Curriculum
DBrowder 11/16/07
Effectiveness of an Early Literacy
Curriculum: Early Outcomes
• Project RAISE
– Funded by Institute for
Education Science
(H324K040004)
– Focus is literacy for
students with moderate
and severe disabilities in
grades K-5
– Diane Browder & Claudia
Flowers, Co-Investigators
• Diane M. Browder &
Claudia Flowers, CoInvestigators
– Fred Spooner, Faculty
– Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell,
Candice Meyer, Josh
Baker, Research
Associates
DBrowder 11/16/07
• Tracie-Lynn Zakas and
Angel Lee, School
Liaisons
• Pam Mims & Kelly
Carmola, Trey Willis,
Graduate Assistants
Contrast “Science of Reading” and Focus for
Students with Severe Disabilities
• National Reading
Panel summary
(2000)
–
–
–
–
–
Phonemic awareness
Phonics
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
• Research with
students with
moderate and severe
developmental
disabilities
– Sight words
DBrowder 11/16/07
• Rarely measured
comprehension of the
sight words
Browder, D. Wakeman, S., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, R.F.
(2006). A comprehensive review of reading for students with significant
cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392-408.
80
70
60
Moderate
50
Severe
Other
40
30
20
10
0
Pic id
Sight Word Phon/Decod Phon Aware
Comp
DBrowder 11/16/07
Fluency
Other
Less
Emphasis
More
Emphasis
A New Model of Literacy
Functional
Reading
↑
LiteratureShared Stories
(Books)
Narrative and
Informational
↓
Secondary
Middle
How
to read
(decoding,
etc.)
Elementary
Browder, D.M., Gibbs, S.L., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G., Mraz, M., & Flowers, C. (In press). Literacy for students with
severe developmental disabilities-what should we teach and what should we hope to achieve? Remedial and Special Education.
DBrowder 11/16/07
Challenges for Teaching Reading
• Early literacy programs often assume
verbal skill
– Many students are nonverbal or limited
verbalizations
• May lack language skills to develop
meaning from text
DBrowder 11/16/07
Our Research
• Development of a curriculum– Early Literacy Skills Builder
• Development of an assessment– Nonverbal Literacy Assessment
• Randomized trials comparison of ELSB
and sight word approach (5 year study)
with students who have autism and
intellectual disabilities
DBrowder 11/16/07
Early Literacy Skills Builder
• Two Parts
– Building with Sounds
and Symbols
– Building with Stories
Browder, D.M., Gibbs, S.L., Ahlgrim-Delzell,
L., Courtade, G., & Lee, A. (2007). Early
Literacy Skills Builder. Madison, WI:
Attainment Company.
DBrowder 11/16/07
ELSB Objectives
• Flashcard Game
Students read vocabulary
words using time delay,
then use words to fill in
sentences.
• Text Pointing
Students point to text as
teacher reads.
• Missing Word Game
Students point to the word
that completes a repeated
story line.
DBrowder 11/16/07
ELSB Objectives—Continued
• Comprehension
Students respond to
literal/inferential questions
about the story.
• Chunking Words
Students demonstrate
understanding of syllable
segmentation by clapping
out syllables in words.
• Tapping Out Sounds
Students demonstrate
understanding of phoneme
segmentation by tapping out
sounds in CVC wordsD. Browder 11/16/07
ELSB Objectives—Continued
• Letter Sounds
Students identify lettersound correspondences.
• First/Last Sounds
Game – Students point
to/say first/last sounds in
words.
• Finding Pictures
with Special Sounds
– Students identify
pictures that begin with
named sounds.
DBrowder 11/16/07
ELSB Objectives—Continued
• Stretching Words
Students point to
sounds in words.
• Finding Pictures
Students point to
pictures that match
segmented words.
• The Picture Game
Students point to
pictures representing
new vocabulary words.
• Fun with Writing
Students complete one
page of their own book
DBrowder 11/16/07
Population
– In grades K-5
– Classified as having moderate/severe ID or
autism with IQ below 55
– Adequate hearing and vision to respond to
verbal instructions and printed materials
– Some progress in English instruction if ESL
– Able to participate in assessment with or
without assistive technology
– Adequate attendance at school
DBrowder 11/16/07
Year One: Participants
and Setting
• Seven classrooms
– 2 autism
– 2 mod/sev
– 3 sev/prof
• 23 met eligibility
requirements
– N=11 treatment
– N=12 control
• Mean IQ 41 (sd
12.67)
DBrowder 11/16/07
Design
• Group experimental
study
• Randomly assigned
students to
treatment
• Pre/post testing in
September and
April/May
DBrowder 11/16/07
Dependent Variables
• Measures
– Nonverbal Literacy Assessment
– Early Literacy Skills Assessment
– PPVT-III
– Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery
• Memory for Sentences
• Letter-Word Identification
DBrowder 11/16/07
Comparison of Treatments
• Experimental
• Control
– Early Literacy Skills
Builder
– Sight words and
pictures
• Includes phonemic
awareness/ phonics
• Edmark or flash cards
• Both
– Participation in story
reading with
systematic instruction
(“Story-based
lessons”)
DBrowder 11/16/07
Implementing the ELSB
• Teachers trained to
follow scripted
– Fidelity: mean 93%
• Repeated lessons
– 2, 4, or 10 day cycle
• Taught to mastery
– Moved to next level
when 75% correct on
lessons
• Small group or 1:1
DBrowder 11/16/07
Shared Intervention
• Experimental and
Comparison Groups
received story-based
lessons
– Mean procedural
fidelity of 85%
DBrowder 11/16/07
Dependant Measures
• Standardized measures
– WLPB – subtests letter-word identification,
memory for sentences
– PPVT-III
• Measures designed for this study
– Nonverbal Literacy assessment – measures
conventions of reading, word study, letter
sounds, syllabication, blending sounds
– Pretest/posttest measure for the curriculumEarly Literacy Skills Builder
DBrowder 11/16/07
Was there a difference in outcomes
for ELSB versus control? YES
• Due to sample size, effect size may be most meaningful
outcome measure
• Despite small sample, significant differences found for
– Measures developed by researchers
• For pre/post for objectives in the curriculum
• For phonics/ PA skills
– Other standardized measures
• No difference in conventions of reading
– Remember both received story-based lessons
DBrowder 11/16/07
Effect Size for NVLA & ELSA:
Researcher Developed Measures
Pretest
Posttest
M
SD
M
SD
Cohen d
Control
40.92
30.94
63.58
39.13
.65
Treatment
36.27
21.42
72.55
37.92
1.22
9.92
5.53
17.00
5.86
1.24
11.82
4.40
19.00
4.77
1.57
32.27
25.50
47.36
33.49
.51
25.3
16.51
56.60
30.00
1.35
Control
40.33
35.40
54.08
35.73
.39
Treatment
42.64
30.80
79.00
32.69
1.15
NVLA Total
CVR
Control
Treatment
Phon Sk
Control
Treatment
ELSA
DBrowder 11/16/07
Effect Size for Other Standardized
Measures
Pretest
Posttest
M
SD
M
SD
Cohen d
Control
18.83
15.76
18.42
18.31
.02
Treatment
14.36
12.18
20.82
15.76
.46
PPVT III
WLPB Total
Control
12.58
13.50
15.58
17.92
.19
Treatment
12.00
12.30
21.45
16.30
.66
Memory for Sentences
Control
9.83
11.67
9.83
12.80
<.01
Treatment
7.73
9.14
14.18
10.70
.65
Letter Word Identification
Control
1.83
2.98
3.42
4.80
.41
Treatment
3.18
4.35
5.55
5.54
.48
DBrowder 11/16/07
ANOVA for Primary Measures
Outcome
NVLA
Effect
Within-Ss
Between-Ss
F-Ratio
η2p
Pre/Post
Interaction
Instruction
40.47 **
3.47 *
.21
.66
.14
.01
Pre/Post
Interaction
Instruction
24.82 **
.01
1.01
.54
<.01
.05
Pre/Post
Interaction
Instruction
32.83 **
5.57 **
.22
.63
.23
.01
CVR
Within-Ss
Between-Ss
PhonSk
Within-Ss
Between-Ss
ELSA
Within-Ss
Pre/Post
17.42 **
.45
Interaction
3.56 *
.15
Between-Ss
Instruction
1.14
.05
Note. ** p<.01, *p<.05. Degrees of freedom for all tests of significance was 1, 21.
DBrowder 11/16/07
Interaction Effects for the Measures
NVLA and ELSA
NVLA Total
CVR Total
80
20
60
15
40
10
20
5
0
0
Pre
Post
Pre
Phon Sk
Post
CBA
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
Pre
Post
DBrowder 11/16/07
Pre
Post
Interaction Effects for the Measures
PPVT-III & WLPB
PPVT III
WLPB Total
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
Pre
Pre
Post
Post
Letter Word Identification
Memory for Sentences
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
15
10
5
0
Pre
Pre
Post
DBrowder 11/16/07
Post
Summary of Findings
• Curriculum could be developed; validated
for this population
– Those in it learned more objectives than those
not receiving it
• Significantly higher on phonics section of
NVLA for ELSB group
– But slow gains
• No difference in Conventions of Reading
– Both received SBL
• Able to use a standardized assessment
DBrowder 11/16/07
Year 2 Replication
• RAISE is a 5-year project
– To have sufficient power for statistical
analysis will use first year data from all
participants for treatment comparison
• 2nd Year Replication
– ALL control students used Edmark and
procedural fidelity was measured for control
as well as treatment
DBrowder 11/16/07
Participants in Year 2
Characteristic
Group Membership
Control
N
%
19
50.0
Treatment
N
%
19
50.0
Gender
Male
Female
15
4
78.9
21.1
10
9
52.6
47.7
African
American
Caucasian
Other
12
63.2
11
57.9
7
0
36.8
-
5
3
26.3
15.8
Verbal
Non-Verbal
9
10
47.4
52.6
11
8
57.9
42.1
9
8
2
47.4
42.1
10.5
10
7
2
52.6
36.8
10.5
40.40 20-55
43.20
20-54
Ethnicity
Verbal Status
Class Type
SAC
Autism
Severe/Profound
IQ
DBrowder 11/16/07
Results for Year 2
• For every measure, greater increase on
posttest compared to pretest for
experimental (ELSB) versus control
(Edmark)
• Effect size showed strong effects for some
measures
• Insufficient power to show statistical
significance due to sample size and
amount of variance
DBrowder 11/16/07
n
Pretest
M
SD
Posttest
M
SD
Diff
Score
Cohen d
NVLA Total
19
19
51.42
50.05
27.99
23.27
84.58
95.42
52.73
25.00
34.42
45.53
.80
1.89
19
19
14.21
14.89
5.52
5.84
20.79
22.53
9.10
5.92
7.26
7.64
.92
1.30
19
19
36.95
34.95
24.70
18.45
63.79
72.89
45.28
22.68
27.16
37.89
.74
1.83
19
19
23.84
33.00
16.48
29.98
26.58
41.79
13.10
21.08
2.74
8.79
.18
.34
19
19
13.16
15.32
17.39
16.74
16.37
23.53
19.13
18.52
3.21
8.21
.18
.47
19
12.32
19
14.00
Memory for Sentences
19
8.20
19
10.37
Letter Word Identification
19
3.11
19
1.74
16.82
16.46
16.95
20.63
19.72
18.60
4.63
6.63
.25
.38
10.86
12.46
10.11
13.84
12.19
13.10
1.91
3.47
.17
.27
4.73
3.49
5.11
4.79
6.27
4.65
2.00
3.05
.36
.74
Control
Treatment
CVR
Control
Treatment
Phon Sk
Control
Treatment
ELSA
Control
Treatment
PPVT III
Control
Treatment
WLPB Total
Control
Treatment
Control
Treatment
Control
Treatment
DBrowder 11/16/07
Both Groups Gained:
ELSB Gained More
Figure 1: NVLA Total Score
100
Group Membership
control group
treatment group
Mean Total Score
80
60
40
20
Pre
Post
NVLA Total
DBrowder 11/16/07
Control Students Learning Some Phonics in
Story Lessons: ELSB Learned More
Figure 3: PhonSk
Group Membership
control group
treatment group
70.00
Mean Total Score
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
Pre
Post
PhonSk
DBrowder 11/16/07
Story Lessons Promote
Conventions of Reading for Both
Group Membership
control group
treatment group
25
Mean Total Score
20
15
10
5
Pre
Post
CVR
DBrowder 11/16/07
Some Differences Show Up on a
Published Instrument: PPVT-III
DBrowder 11/16/07
And on
Woodcock Language Proficiency
Group Membership
control group
treatment group
22.00
Mean Total Score
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
1
2
WLPB
DBrowder 11/16/07
Limitations
• Group randomized trials and a low
incidence population
– Lack of power for statistical analysis; high
variance
• Using instruments developed by
investigators
– Building a validity argument for the NVLA as
we use it (strong test-retest; standardized
administration; strong interrater)
DBrowder 11/16/07
Reference for First-Year Outcomes
• Browder, D.M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L.,
Courtade, G., Gibbs, S.L., & Flowers, C.
(in press). Evaluation of the effectiveness
of an early literacy program for students
with significant developmental disabilities
using group randomized trial research.
Exceptional Children.
– Also see www.attainmentcompany.com for
reprint.
DBrowder 11/16/07
Story-Based Lessons
Pamela J. Mims
UNC -Charlotte
November 16, 2007
Story-Based Lessons (SBL)
• Developed to help with the construction of
meaning from the interaction between the adult
and child (Vygotsky, 1978).
• Help develop literacy by providing exposure to
both narrative and expository works (Morrow &
Gambrell, 2002)
• Allows access to the following literacy concepts:
(a) print awareness; (b) phonological
awareness; (c) alphabet knowledge; and (d)
metalinguistic awareness (Justice & Kaderavek,
2002).
• Help students improve comprehension and
vocabulary development (Vacca et al., 2006)
• Increase scores on vocabulary, comprehension,
and decoding measures (Bus, van Ijzendoorn, &
Pellegrini, 1995).
Steps of SBL
•
•
•
•
Anticipatory set
Opening the book
Turning the pages
Identifying author
and title
• Completing a
repeated story line
• Pointing
• Answering a
prediction question
• Pointing to/saying
vocabulary word
• Answering
comprehension
questions
Increasing Participation of Elementary
Students with Profound Disabilities during
Shared Stories
Diane M. Browder
Pamela J. Mims
Fred Spooner
Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Angel Lee
Life Span
Purpose
• The purpose of this study was to examine
the effects of an individualized task
analysis created through a team planning
meeting for students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities on the
number of independent responses during
a story-based lesson.
Participants
• 3 students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities.
• All students are at the presymbolic or
intentionality level.
• Participating students met the criteria of showing
little or no response in a story-based lesson
activity and were all students that did not meet
criteria to participate in the RAISE grant (a grant
that focuses on teaching students with
significant disabilities emerging literacy skills),
level A due to a lack of consistent responses
during testing.
Independent
Variable
• Individualized storybased lesson
template (developed
in team planning
meetings)
Dependent
Variable
• The number of steps
initiated on the
individualized task
analysis when
involved in a storybased lesson.
SBL for Students at the
Presymbolic or Awareness Level
• Teaming
• Consider components of UDL
– Representation
– Engagement
– Expression
• Specific focus on Systematic Instruction
procedures and AAC devices
• Adapt book to include students name, objects
from story, a repeated story line, and a surprise
element
Steps of SBL for Students at the
Presymbolic or Awareness Level
• Chooses a book from 2
• Focuses on chosen
book
• Focuses on sensory
material to introduce
book
• Makes prediction from a
choice of 2 objects
• Reacts to hearing their
name in story (3 times)
• Focuses on object
named on page (3
different objects)
• Shows recognition of
repeated story line (3
times)
• Reacts to surprise
element
• Indicates more or
finished
• Identifies what story
was about (same
objects as used in
prediction)
Baseline
Intervention
Number of Steps Correct in Task Analysis
16
14
12
10
8
Student 1
6
4
2
0
16
14
12
10
8
6
Student 2
4
2
0
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
Student 3
2
0
Sessions
Discussion
• This study uniquely evaluated a method for
increasing students’ participation in storybased lessons.
• Through individualizing a task analysis by team
planning and considering the components of
UDL, systematic instruction, and AAC, all
students in the intervention increased their
communication and participation during a
story-based lesson that focused on ageappropriate literature.
Using Early Literacy Skills
Builder (ELSB) Curriculum
Building with Stories
Building with Sounds and Symbols
Linda Schreiber, MS, CCC-SLP
Board Recognized Specialist in Child Language
Consulting Editor
Building with Sounds and Symbols
• Students learn vocabulary, phonemic
awareness, listening comprehension,
conventions of print
ELSB Levels
• Level A
Designed for the student who may not have
picture recognition or awareness of books.
Uses objects to give meaning to the stories as
opposed to pictures
Has five lessons; each lesson gets more
difficult, fading the objects and increasing the
pictures
Implications for SpeechLanguage Pathologists
• Help plan for
nonverbal
communication
needs
• Provide expertise in
PA objectives
• Collaborate in
planning story-based
lessons (SBL)
• Assist in determining level of
comprehension questions and target
vocabulary in story-based lessons
Contact Information
• Diane Browder: [email protected]
• Linda Schreiber
[email protected]
• Pamela Mims: [email protected]
White Papers at ELSB page:
www.AttainmentCompany.com
…More on Early Literacy Skills Builder…
(Curriculum Presentation)
Saturday, 9:30 to 10:30, CC/102A