‘To have a plan’: teachers’ perceptions of working with a literacy instruction combining phonics and comprehension applications for students with intellectual disability and communication difficulties

Abstract

Purpose

Students with intellectual disabilities (ID) typically have difficulties with literacy learning, often not acquiring basic literacy skills. Research and practical experience indicate that when these students are provided with evidence-based instruction, including comprehension as well as phonemic strategies, literacy may develop.

Methods

In this study, four pairs of teachers were interviewed regarding their perceptions of a 12-week digital literacy intervention that focused on both phonics and comprehension strategies. The intervention aimed to enhance literacy and communication development in students aged 7–21, who had mild to severe ID.

Results and conclusion

Four themes were identified in the analysis. It was seen that the teachers found it valuable to have access to two apps accessing and facilitating the use of different literacy strategies in meeting the needs of individual students. This digital format was also perceived as positive, contributing to creating a supportive and systematic learning environment that enhanced and increased literacy learning. The teachers recurringly also talked about the positive influence of participating in research, lifting the strong focus, and positive attention as very important for both teachers and students.

Keywords:

• Thematic analysis
• dyad interviews
• intellectual disabilities
• applications
• literacy intervention

Implications for Rehabilitation

• Having adapted applications for literacy learning that is supportive and systematic can be a key element in successful rehabilitation for students with ID.

• Teacher-student interaction is noted as significant for both motivation and the development of reading skills for participating students.

• The use of these applications also had a positive secondary effect on communication for some students.

Background

Individuals with intellectual disability (ID) have often difficulties with communication and language, and many are in need of augmentative or alternative communication (AAC), often using manual signs, pictures or speech-generating devices to support understanding or expression [1]. Further, communication and language difficulties also affect other skills that build on or are assisted by language, such as reading and writing. Difficulties with reading and writing will have a large impact on education and societal participation, and it is therefore essential to put a major focus on literacy learning for this group of children [1–3].

During the academic year 2022/2023, about one percent of the total student population in Sweden were enrolled in compulsory schools for students with ID [4]. Additionally, about two percent attended upper secondary school for students with ID [5]. The challenges faced by teachers in these educational settings are evident as they meet students with highly heterogeneous abilities, requiring them to address individual needs and determine appropriate levels of proximal development [6]. It is therefore important to focus on the views of the teacher when investigating interventions to this population. For example, investigating teachers’ perceptions is important to identify benefits and challenges, facilitate future interventions, and complement results obtained through more quantitative approaches [7]. A significant research-to-practice gap has been observed in the way reading instruction is provided in many special education classrooms for students with ID [8]. While an intervention may be deemed effective based on quantitative research findings, it is equally important for it to be viewed as practical and effective by both teachers and their students. Thus, the teachers’ perceptions presented in this study will contribute to a better understanding of a digital literacy instruction provided to students with ID and communication difficulties being at an early literacy level. The intervention included the use of both comprehension- and phonics-based literacy applications.

Literacy and communication in students with ID

The Simple View of Reading [9–11] describes reading comprehension as a process involving two components: word recognition (including decoding) and comprehension. Phonics-based literacy instruction focuses on the relationship between the speech sounds and corresponding letters, tapping into word recognition, while comprehension-based literacy instruction emphasizes the ability to derive meaning from text [12]. Yet, when it comes to the fundamental elements of literacy competency, research is often focused on either phonics or comprehension.

Earlier studies of literacy instruction on the ID population have primarily focused on instruction of sight words (recognise and read high-frequency words) and to some extent, comprehension-based strategies [13]. The comprehension-based strategies are typically using motivating materials and contextual cues, such as pictures, spoken words, or prompting questions to providing contextual cues to help reduce the cognitive processing demands on learners and release cognitive resources for effective learning to take place [14–17]. Since about 20 years, phonic-based studies have become increasingly common for the ID population [2, 18–24]. In a meta-analysis on beginning literacy interventions on children and adolescents with ID by Reichow et al. all included studies (seven studies with a total of 352 students), reported improved literacy outcomes following phonics instruction [22]. Furthermore, there is also evidence that indicate that combining comprehension-based and phonics-based instruction to a more comprehensive approach could be the most effective way [25–28]. Using both strategies is also a strong recommendation from the National Reading Panel [29] additionally including such as phonological awareness, vocabulary, and fluency to enable successful literacy learning. However, adaptations in instruction are typically needed to support participation for students with ID and communication difficulties.

A qualitative study by Taylor et al. investigated six teachers’ perceptions of using literacy instruction with students with significant developmental disabilities [30]. Their findings suggested that having a well-composed and adapted curriculum to follow enhanced the student’s literacy skills and was positive for the teachers’ self-efficacy. It also saved time for the otherwise comprehensive adaptation of materials that had to be made for different students. In a survey study that included 147 special educators, answering questions about their training and implementation of literacy and reading instructions for students with ID, the results showed that more than 80% responded that they were moderately to very confident teaching with scaffolding instructions [31]. Further, only 17% reported that they had access to materials that were adapted to their needs of all their students. To deal with this situation, the special educators reported that they often had to use material intended to be used with younger students, or materials that they adapted themselves. In other survey studies with teachers in special education, witness of similar barriers, such as lack of appropriate material and that the time needed to adapt existing material is limited [32, 33]. This underscores the importance of disseminating existing material for evidence-based literacy instruction and to further develop easily assistive tools to meet the individual needs of different students.

Besides the benefit of learning to read, both research and clinical experience inform us that supporting phonological awareness and literacy skills for students with ID and communication difficulties may have a positive effect on communication and speech [20, 30, 34, 35]. Bock et al. observed and interviewed two teachers when implementing a comprehensive literacy program for students with severe disabilities in a special education classroom [36]. The results showed that, besides the students’ academic gains, the students improved their independent communication skills and increased their engagement. Simultaneous processing of visual and auditory cues, such as seeing the written word and hearing the sounds, can reinforce the phoneme-grapheme connection and provide valuable practice for students with speech production difficulties [37]. When individuals have ID and communication difficulties, the benefits of using AAC are well established, but this is a group of individuals who are very heterogeneous in their needs [1, 38]. Using AAC, such as speech-generating devices, may for example enable students who have difficulties producing oral speech to receive auditory feedback which might support literacy learning [39–43]. Although various advanced AAC systems with pictures and symbols exist, none provide the comprehensive ability to convey any desired utterance in a given situation as the alphabetic system [2]. Therefore, teaching literacy to students in need of AAC is vital but still presents challenges since most available methods and materials for learning literacy are not adapted for this group [2]. The possibility of using digital tools with adapted applications to facilitate participation, provide text-to-speech, and offer accessible ways for the students with ID and communication difficulties can be vital for optimising their learning [21, 43]. To learn more about how the teachers perceived a combined phonics and comprehension-based digital literacy intervention, specially designed for students with complex communication needs holds significance for guiding future implementations of applications.

Computer-assisted instruction (CAI)

The mobile revolution has made CAI and digital AAC more accessible and affordable for an increasing number of children [20]. These tools offer new and engaging means of communication and learning, which can be especially important for children with ID who typically require support through multiple sensory channels and repeated motivators [17, 44, 45]. Specific CAI interventions have been proven to support attention, memory and to motivate learning [43, 46, 47]. Thus, for students with ID and communication difficulties, CAI might be useful for enhancing literacy skills [21, 43, 46, 48, 49]. For example, Goo et al. [48] showed that using a CAI device can be a helpful tool for teaching phonemic segmentation to elementary students with mild to moderate ID. Ahlgrim-Delzell et al. [21] created a phonics-based literacy instruction for iPad, and the students receiving this instruction outperformed a control group. However, a study by Nakeva von Mentzer et al. [49] showed very little benefit at group level for students (n = 17) with Down syndrome using intensive CAI with a phonics-based approach. Nonetheless, on an individual level several students did improve their alphabetic decoding skills, particularly on the trained words, suggesting the need for future research in larger samples.

Few CAI tools are designed for individuals who require AAC. Students need access to the methods that works best for them: touch, eye gaze or scanning to optimise literacy learning conditions. Also, it is important to emphasize that even with well CAIs, it is likely not solely the applications themselves that teach students how to read. The role of the teacher in structuring the situation, providing clarification, and maintaining the student’s focus and motivation is crucial for effective learning [50]. The fundamental finding in a meta-analysis regarding a widely used educational phonics application (GraphoGame) was the importance of adult involvement in the training: ‘it informs the forefront of research on CAI instruction of a critical parameter: adult-child interactions’ (p.66) [50]. This conclusion is supported by the large amount of research based on the importance of recast for language acquisition. Language is developing though everyday interactions and it is also especially important for students with language impairment [51], and those who rely on AAC [52].

Despite the potential advantages of appropriate CAI, special education teachers sometimes lack knowledge of such benefits (as well as limitations) [53, 54]. Fälth and Selenius [54] reported a positive attitude among teachers in Sweden towards digital technology, and its use for enhancing academic abilities, such as literacy. Middle school special education teachers reported that they found digital media to be an effective tool for literacy education when used, but still, it was seldom utilized [55].

Literacy intervention combining phonics and comprehension-based applications

This study is part of DiLL (Digital Literacy Learning for students with Intellectual Disability), an intervention study focusing on literacy development in students with ID in need of AAC [7]. The aim of the DiLL project was to investigate literacy learning using different literacy approaches, focusing either phonics, comprehension, or a combination of both. The literacy intervention was implemented using applications, and participant practiced literacy during 12 weeks with a recommended time of 90 min per week. Weekly reports were given online to the research team.

The comprehension-based instruction was provided using the application Animega-is from Topic DOS AB (www.animega-is.se) [56]. The predecessor of the application has shown positive results in literacy development for this population [16, 17, 45]. The phonics-based instruction was based on the sections focusing phonics from the application Accessible Literacy Learning (ALL) from Tobii Dynavox (n.d.). Two small-scale studies involving children with complex communication needs demonstrated the effectiveness of the ALL curriculum in improving reading outcomes [18, 57]. However, previous studies have focused on the analogue version of the ALL curriculum. Both Animega-is and ALL are developed for students with ID and communication difficulties providing rich multimodal support and flexible settings. They also use motivational features that were designed to engage the teacher-student interaction. The interaction between the student and teacher are emphasised in the instructions and research on the comprehension-based application confirms this important relationship [17]. The DiLL project intervention also included an online two-day workshop for the teachers, with a focus on learning how to use the apps. The teachers were provided with pictorial material to be used for visual support, and to enhance mutual conversation using aided input [58].

The present study

This specific study focused the perceptions of teachers that were included in the intervention group working with the combined approach, using both Animega-is and ALL. In relation to prior research on the effects of literacy intervention on literacy learning [22, 25, 27] and to some extent communication [20, 30, 34], the current study potentially adds new knowledge by investigating the teachers’ views of using a combined digital literacy intervention. Developing such knowledge is crucial due to the important role of the teacher for successful learning, especially for this group for students. In terms of practical implications, it is important to gain a deeper understanding of teachers’ perceptions since they are the ones implementing new methods or tools for students, making them crucial for achieving improvements in literacy. The following research questions were posed:

• How did the teachers perceive working with a combined digital literacy intervention targeting both phonics and comprehension-based strategies?

• To what degree, if at all, did the teachers perceive any change in literacy development and communication of their students during the literacy intervention?

Methods

To learn about the teachers’ perspective of using a combined phonics and comprehension-based literacy intervention, the study employed an inductive, data-driven, qualitative research design. The data collection involved dyad interviews, in which two teachers were interviewed together [59]. In dyad interviews, topics tend to appear more quickly and intertwine more closely with each other compared to focus groups [60]. The researchers sought the depth, detail, and personal perspectives offered by each teacher while also desiring to observe a level of interaction similar to what occurs in focus groups [61], while allowing more time for all participants to share their perspectives. The qualitative data were thereafter analysed with reflexive thematic analysis for gaining a better understanding of the data [62]. Reflexive thematic analysis can be particularly valuable when examining personal experiences, emotions, and perspectives of participants. The reflexive aspect also encourages researchers to be aware of their own influence on the interpretation and analysis process, fostering transparency [63, 64].

Participants

To achieve purposive sampling, all twenty-one teachers who worked with the combined literacy intervention using both phonics-based and comprehension-based strategies, were asked via e-mail to participate in a video conference dyad interview. Eight teachers responded positively (see Table 1 for details about participant together with information about their students). The designated letters (A, B, C, D) of the teachers correspond to the interview dyad they belonged to, and the number indicates teacher 1 or teacher 2. Three of the teachers (A1, B1 and C1) had students with mild ID (5) and the rest of the teachers worked with students having moderate or unknown ID (8). The students represent about 40% of all participating students in the combined intervention group although no student with severe ID is represented.

Table 1. Overview of teachers’ age, highest education, year of examination, and years working in special education.

Teacher	Age range	Highest Education	Year of examination	Years working in SE	Students attending literacy intervention: Gender, Age, Diagnoses other than ID, form of AAC:
A1	40–45	Special education teacher	2013	5	Girl, 13, Mild ID, DS and hearing impairment, manual signs, and pictures Boy, 12, Mild ID and ASD, manual signs, and pictures
A2	30–35	Special education teacher	2019	2	Boy,16, Moderate ID and ASD, manual signs, and pictures Boy, 12, Moderate ID, ADHD and hearing impairment, sign language, pictures, and SGD
B1	50–55	Special education teacher	2017	16	Boy, 12, Mild ID, ASD, ADHD and unilateral deafness, manual signs, and pictures Boy, 10, NA ID and DS, manual signs, and pictures Girl, 8, Moderate ID, ADHD, pictures
B2	40–45	Teacher with additional speech education	2000	3	Boy, 14, Moderate ID and DS, manual signs, and pictures
C1	45–50	Teacher with additional literacy education	1998	3	Girl, 15, Mild, ID, NA Girl, 14, Mild ID, DS, manual signs
C2	40–45	Special education teacher	2014	15	Girl, 17, Moderate ID, ASD and ADHD, manual signs, pictures, and SGD
D1	50–55	Preschool teacher	1998	5	Girl, 13, Moderate ID and ASD, pictures
D2	50–55	Upper secondary school	NA	6	Boy, 16, Moderate ID, ASD and ADHD, pictures

The students attending the literacy intervention and their descriptive information about gender, age, diagnoses, and form of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC).

Note. A1 and A2 are together in a dyad interview as B1 + B2, C1 + C2 and D1 + D2. ID = intellectual disability, ASD = Autism spectrum disorder, ADHD = Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, DS = Downs Syndrome, SGD = Speech-generating device. NA = Not Available.

Materials and procedure

Interview guide

A semi-structured interview guide [59] developed by the research group was used to investigate the perceptions of the teachers about working with a literacy intervention, including both comprehension- and phonics-based applications. Two unpublished master theses were conducted as part of the DiLL project, specifically focusing on the perceptions of teachers included in either of the two other intervention groups that utilized only one application (ALL or Animega-is). These two theses served as pilots for the design of the study, for example, concerning the questions that were included in the interview guide. Questions were formulated about important contextual aspects related to participation in the DiLL project and the specific applications. Additionally, questions were posed about potential changes in the students’ literacy and communication abilities. Some examples of questions that initiated the conversation in the interview are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Examples of questions of the interview guide.

Topic	Question
Contextual aspects	How did you perceive your participation in this literacy project?
	How did you perceive teaching with the two applications compared to your ordinary literacy instruction?
Literacy	Have you experienced or noticed any development on your students’ literacy skills?
	How did you perceive your students’ engagement and interest? In the applications? For literacy in general?
Communication	How has the communicative interaction been between the student and yourselves as teachers during the use of the applications?
	Have there been any changes in students’ communication, language, and speech abilities? If yes, what and how?

Dyad interviews

The dyad interviews were conducted remotely using the video conferencing tool Zoom, due to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. The use of online interviews also facilitated the exchange of experiences between teachers from different geographical locations. An external video camera was used to film the interviews from the laptop screen.

The eight teachers were divided into four dyads (A, B, C, D). The first interview (A) was conducted together by author three and six for consensus of the procedure and thereafter one interview (B) was conducted by author three and the final two interviews (C, D) were conducted by author six. None of the interviewers had met the teachers before the interviews. The interviewer summarised the answers regarding literacy, communication ability, and contextual aspects and invited the informants to add any additional information or thoughts they had. Each interview lasted between 60 and 120 min.

Data analysis and trustworthiness

Video-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim by the first author. Any text that could reveal the identity of an informant was anonymised. The transcripts were inserted into NVivo and analysed guided by the six phases in reflexive thematic analysis proposed and described by Braun and Clarke [62, 64]. Reflexive thematic analysis was chosen in order to explore, reflect on and categorise all responses, generating key themes from the teachers’ responses [64] without any preconceptions. The analysis followed an experiential (capturing the teachers’ perspectives), and semantic (exploring explicit meaning) approach, focusing on the explicit statements made by the participants [64]. There were no pre-existing codes or themes, but the analysis resulted in key findings relevant to the research questions. The analysis was primarily performed by the first author, but three of the co-authors (no. 2, 3, 8) also took active part in analyses and discussions of the analysis for investigator triangulation. If there was a disagreement, it was discussed until an agreement was reached.

The interviews were first read for familiarisation (phase 1), with no specific focus, and then re-read with notes taken during this reading on a separate document. Thereafter, the coding process of the text started, guided by our research questions, and based on semantic coding, continuous refinement and adaptation of the codes (phase 2). The coding process was thorough, but only segments of data relevant to the research questions were collated for this study. A collected response could be sorted into several codes. Subthemes and themes were conceptualised by looking for patterns of shared meaning between codes (phase 3). In this process, all codes were reviewed, and themes were adjusted based on further reflexive analysis while the writing process started. The subthemes and themes were then checked against each other and against the original data transcription (phase 4). Themes and subthemes were mapped and revised (phase 5) and the result was written (phase 6). The overall process involved moving back and forth, starting from the detailed level of the coded extracts, then progressing to specific research questions and initial themes, and finally expanding to broader patterns and narratives. An example of data extraction to a theme is given in Table 3.

Table 3. Example of reflexive thematic analysis of the teachers’ interviews.

Data extract	Code	Subtheme	Theme
D2: ‘It has been a boost in self-confidence.’	Boost in self-confidence	Grow as an individual	The engaging effect of participating in the research project
A1: ‘They’ve got it now. For example, they can read aloud nonsense words that don’t mean anything, so it’s really fun to see.’	Decoding words	Cracking the code of reading	Student development

Note. D2, A1 (interview persons).

Ethics

The present study was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (no. 2019-03845 and 2020-06215). The teachers received written information about the intervention and gave their written consent to participate. After the students had received the 12 weeks of literacy intervention, all 21 teachers were asked if they wanted to participate in an interview regarding their perceived experiences from the intervention and how they perceived their student’s participation. The teachers were reassured that their participation was voluntary, and they had the right to withdraw from the study at any point, without the need to provide a reason for this or facing any negative consequences because of their decision.

Findings

Four main themes with subthemes were identified in the reflexive thematic analysis (Table 4). The themes addressed the teachers’ perception of participating in the literacy intervention using the two different applications as well as its effect on the learning environment and the possible development of students’ skills in literacy and communication. The themes and their subthemes are outlined in the following presentation along with translated quotes from the interviews, which were originally conducted in Swedish.

Table 4. Theme and subthemes after reflexive thematic analysis.

Theme	Subtheme
The engaging effect of participating in the research project	Grow as an individual Positive support from different stakeholders Challenge low expectations on students with ID
Digital tools as scaffolding for learning	Positive effects of the two applications Positive to use two types of applications Motivating… but less fun in the long run?
The impact of a supportive teaching environment	The importance of structure and continuity The teacher’s role
Student development	Cracking the code of reading Communication develops on different levels …but not for everyone

The engaging effect of participating in the research project

Grow as an individual

The teachers reported a lot of commitment and high motivation from participating students. The teachers noticed that the students ‘took pride’ (A2, D1) in being a part of a research project and felt privileged and ‘chosen’ (D1) when they worked with the applications. The students’ self-confidence received a significant boost because of feeling chosen, their one-on-one time with a teacher, and the extensive focus on literacy intervention. It was a ‘happening’ (C1) when working with the applications:

That she did well and that she knew a lot. It [the literacy intervention]gave them a very positive boost. It was fun to see. (C1)

Furthermore, this self-confidence extended to other scenarios where the participating students served as role models for their peers. The curious classmates provided an opportunity for the students to shine by showing the applications for them and it took the student’s own learning ‘to another level’ (A1). The overall increased interest in literacy observed in students participating in the intervention, positively affected the academic environment. When the peers saw students succeeding, they saw that it was possible to succeed themselves.

The teachers also perceived that their own knowledge and expertise had been confirmed and developed through this literacy project. As a result, several felt empowered in their role as teachers and gained confidence in their ability to teach ‘phonics and sound blending’ (C2) to their students. In addition, the intervention enhanced their understanding of their students’ capacity and ability to assimilate literacy, thereby improving their knowledge in this area.

For me, I would say, it has not changed much, more like a confirmation that what I am doing actually works. (C1)

Positive support from different stakeholders

While participating in this intervention, teachers received positive support from the school management, colleagues, and the students’ caregivers. The management and closest colleagues provided great support given available time, joint focus, and an attitude of ‘Let’s do this together’ (D2), and ‘That we all pull in the same direction’ (B2), which was ‘crucial’(B1) for success and for ensuring adequate time for the intervention. This in turn meant that the students received the positive support they needed from their teacher to be able to carry out the literacy intervention at school.

Caregivers also had expressed interest in their children’s participation in the study to the teachers. One teacher described the parents as being ‘all fired up’ (A2) over the possibility to participate in the literacy intervention research. Another teacher mentioned that the parents were ‘on board’ (C1) immediately when she informed them about the literacy intervention.

Challenge low expectations on students with ID

One teacher (A1) described previous experiences of encountering other adults within the school world who had low expectations on the group of students with ID, some even expressing sentiments like ‘What’s the point of trying?’ or ‘The students have nothing to gain’. These adults were referring specifically to the group of students with moderate to severe ID, especially concerning academic achievements such as reading and writing.

Another teacher (A2) realised what could be achieved if resources, time, and energy were invested. It was important to have this as a ‘verification’ (A2) to present to school management in case they opposed prioritising students with moderate to severe ID and their literacy learning. Some teachers reported that they were surprised by their student’s engagement and motivation to sit and work for such a long period. Before the intervention, they had concerns that it could be difficult to get the students motivated to work with the applications.

Digital tools as scaffolding for learning

Positive effects of the two applications

The use of these digital tools turned out to be highly motivating for the students and for some, added a new alternative for learning. Moreover, the use of a digital tool that was widely perceived as ‘high status’ (A1) by many students and peers served as an additional motivator.

The more ways we have to find motivation and joy in reading, the better, in order to accommodate different students and as you [A2] said, in different ways. (A1)

The direct and clear feedback provided by the applications was perceived as a support in teaching. Though the feedback may be repetitive, it allowed students to recognize themselves and know what to expect, resulting in positive experiences. Teachers perceived it as ‘less stressful’(A1) for the students to receive instruction and error feedback such as ‘green or red immediately’ (D1) from the computer rather than from a teacher. For some, the digital format transformed a once boring task into an exciting, motivating activity, making literacy learning more fun for students.

Positive to use two types of applications

The two applications were perceived to motivate students in different ways and to complement each other. They both displayed clear progress and the reward of the animations further spurred the students’ interest. The teachers perceived that the students liked switching between the two learning applications. Some found the comprehension-based application to be the most enjoyable, while others preferred the phonics-based application. Which of the applications that was the most preferred also changed for many students during the intervention, so having both options made it easier for teachers to keep the students motivated.

For one student, it was beneficial for her to switch between [the applications]. It was positive to work with the phonics-based approach and letter-sound correspondence, but also to work with whole words and the comprehension of them. (B2)

The teachers perceived the comprehension-based application as ‘more fun’ (B1) for many students. Conversations and shared joy between the student and the teacher were stimulated by the animations in the application.

I find it [Animega-is] to be more enjoyable, as it includes funny sequences, and we have had a good laugh at astronauts and bananas, funny combinations. (A2)

Many of the teachers found the phonics-based application more pedagogical and focused on teaching the students how to read single words. The application’s ‘focus on the sounds’ (B2) was particularly important, and some teachers found that this application gave the students the most valuable learning experience. For some students, the phonics-based application proved to be a powerful motivator, particularly if they were already motivated to learn how to read. The phonics-based application reminded teachers and students of a ‘familiar way’ (C1) of working with literacy and therefore they were more comfortable working with it. This application also helped them feel a clearer sense of progress. Though the feedback may be repetitive, it allowed students to recognize the task and know what to expect, resulting in positive experiences.

Motivating… but less fun in the long run?

Initially, teachers perceived the applications to be engaging and enjoyable, but over time, some found them to be repetitive and static. The teachers perceived that some students found it more entertaining after a while to randomly tap on words or letters without focusing on the outcome. The teachers struggled to identify the relevance of this random tapping for the students and noticed that the students sometimes lost motivation and concentration. Sometimes also small details could irritate, such as a picture of a bee ‘did not look like a bee’ (C2), according to one teacher’s student. The teachers recognized the importance of continuing with the applications even when the activities were not entertaining and ultimately perceived that the students overcame this challenge. One teacher expressed the importance of repetition:

Yes, it’s about not being afraid of repetition. As adults, we may feel that it becomes tedious, but that’s exactly what they need to consolidate and move forward. (D1)

Some teachers also employed a motivating event at the end of the lesson to encourage the student to continue. This could be various things that motivated the student, such as spending time with another application chosen by the student or getting to play with their collectibles.

The impact of a supportive teaching environment

The importance of structure and continuity

All teachers emphasised the importance of structure in both the teaching situation and in the applications. As one of the teachers stated: ‘clarity is better for everyone’ (B2). The structure surrounding the situation brought up important features, such as providing a clear understanding of how to proceed, including ‘how to do it, when and with whom, and on which days’ (C2) which gave the students a sense of peace while working. Schedules with pictorial support were used to provide visual support for all students. Some students had the same teacher for all sessions, while others had different staff members. Nevertheless, the provided framework made it easy for everyone to follow the given instructions. This framework, ‘to have a plan’ (C2), helped students to know what to expect, creating a sense of security and calmness, enabling them to focus on the task at hand:

The overall structure has been extremely clear and straightforward during these sessions, and it has worked very well. Surprisingly well. (D1)

Both applications had a clear hierarchy and displayed progress that the teachers and students appreciated greatly. It helped in maintaining structure and prevented the teachers from moving on too quickly. Even when students seemed to lose interest, the teacher’s perseverance and ‘working systematically with the apps’ (C2) gave positive results.

The structure is a crucial part, but also not mixing and changing, rather sticking to the same application, taking the time and repeating it over and over again so that it sticks. (A2)

The teacher’s role

The teacher played a significant role in the intervention, bringing their knowledge and expertise to both create a supportive teaching environment and motivate the students. The teacher’s motivating role could vary. On some days, teachers needed to be ‘motivational coaches’ (D2) and use all their energy to create ‘joyful learning’ (A2), while on other days they could take a step back allowing the students to ‘get into working mode’ (D2) with the help of the synthetic voice in the applications. Teachers used their intuition and adapted their teaching approach to meet the student’s needs:

So, one has stayed calm at some times, and other times one has had to use all of the communication tools in the toolbox. (D2)

Creating a systematic and supportive teaching environment can be a challenging task in the role of a teacher, particularly in a classroom setting. Some teachers have found that working one-on-one with students in the intervention, free from ‘the stress and noise in the classroom’ (A2), has been beneficial for both the students and the teacher. This type of focused intervention not only helped students to develop their skills but also allowed teachers to gain a deeper understanding of their student’s abilities. Through this process, teachers were able to identify skills and strengths that they may not have recognized before. Additionally, working with the applications helped to confirm some of the teachers’ prior knowledge while also enhancing their understanding of their students’ literacy development:

What are the student’s strengths, but also what are the student’s challenges or perhaps limitations in becoming a proficient reader. (B2)

Utilizing AAC was a natural means of communication for the teachers in their special education context, and this approach was also applied in the situation involving the applications for the students. One common strategy involved using manual signs to complement sounds and words within the applications, as well as enhancing communication throughout the lesson. As one teacher stated:

The interaction has been such that I have had to use both manual signs and visual supports at times. But that is what our communication looks like. I must use alternative means of communication. (B1)

Student development

Cracking the code of reading

All teachers observed a general increase in their students’ ‘curiosity’ (B1) and interest in reading and writing. This interest was evident not only in the classroom but also in other contexts outside of school, where students tried to read on their own or asked the teachers to read ‘the signs’ (C1) in the surroundings. One teacher gave the following example from one student who recently had developed an awareness of literacy:

She has started asking what it says, what the letters are, and that is something I haven’t experienced, or we haven’t experienced, her being interested in, in that way. (D1)

Several teachers saw progress in understanding ‘words form and content’ (A1) and understanding that written words have a meaning. Teachers also perceived students gaining new abilities such as understanding ‘the bridge for connecting letters to speech sounds’ (A2). At the same time, the intervention was described as “not a ‘wow’ moment, but that there has been progress” (B1) in phonemic reading even if it was difficult for some students ‘due to their learning difficulties’ (B2).

Taking it one step further, some students successfully ‘cracked the reading code’ (A1) and took their literacy skills to new heights. Decoding had become more secure for many of them, and for two students, even ‘nonsense words’ (A1) were possible to decode. With a larger focus on written language, two students developed their writing skills. Areas such as understanding the direction of reading in a text and knowing writing rules, such as periods, new sentences, and capital letters, had been developed. Another student also gained interest in text and started to ‘take his finger and follow the text on the screen’ (D2) when reading/listening to audiobooks online. Additionally, some students had made progress in learning more ‘whole words’ (B2, C2).

Communication develops on different levels

When participating in the literacy intervention, the teachers were, of course, aware of the literacy progress. Still, when considering the students’ communication development during this period, some important observations were noticed. Above all, many teachers observed changes in communication and linguistic aspects such as taking more initiative to communicate, talking more and in longer sentences, slower speed, and using more correct grammar.

She was able to express herself before as well, in longer sentences and words, but I feel that they are longer and that we sometimes are surprised that they are composed in a different way with correct word order. (C2)

Some students were perceived as having gained a larger vocabulary with words not otherwise being exposed to such as ‘astronaut’ (A2). This development of vocabulary also gave rise to new topics of conversation where parallels to their own lives such as ‘I saw an astronaut on TV yesterday’ (A1). This improvement of ability was mentioned mainly referring to the comprehension-based application.

A larger awareness of the speech sounds was also noted when focusing on the letters, especially when working with the phonics-based application. The ‘awareness of how to form the mouth’ (B2) when reading different letters and pronouncing words has brought attention to the speech production skills of the students.

…but not for everyone

Some teachers experienced this relatively short intervention period as a challenge to observe progress in their students’ reading and communication skills. For example, the teachers stated that ‘consolidating knowledge’ (A2) takes time and that difficulties with ‘memory’ (B2) clearly affect learning. While teachers indicated that their students had learned new skills, it was challenging for the students to recall it after a weekend or holiday. Furthermore, assessing progress was complicated when students had difficulty expressing themselves. It was difficult to differentiate between new knowledge and what teachers simply had not discovered before:

I find it challenging to give a straightforward answer about whether they have truly developed. Our feeling is yes, this is how it is. It could be that we have become aware of their abilities if you understand what I mean, or perhaps they have learned more words. However, as I mentioned, I am a bit unsure about exactly what they were capable of before. (C2)

Discussion

In this study, we investigated teachers’ perceptions of working with a combined literacy intervention using both a phonic-based and a comprehension-based application. A reflexive thematic analysis of the four dyad interviews resulted in four themes: The engaging effect of participating in the research project, Digital tools as scaffolding for learning, the impact of a supportive teaching environment, and Student development. The discussion first addresses the research questions based on these findings. After this, it focuses on the theme that was not connected to the research questions but that all dyads discussed, which concerned the importance of being included in a research project. Finally, the methodological discussion follows.

How did the teachers perceive working with a combined literacy intervention targeting both phonics and comprehension-based strategies?

The teachers perceived that working with two applications employing different approaches, one focused on phonics and the other on comprehension, was beneficial in scaffolding learning. This was particularly valuable considering the heterogeneous nature of their students, requiring well-thought-out and adapted instruction. The student’s needs place high demands on the teacher’s competence, as well as on the availability of materials, to adapt the support to align with each student’s zone of proximal development [6]. The teachers meant that the stepwise progression in the applications followed the students’ skill level over a longer period without moving forward too quickly. Similar to what has been reported in other studies of teachers in special education [30–33], the teachers in the current study perceived challenges in finding appropriate materials for teaching literacy to students with ID and communication difficulties. There is a need to disseminate evidence-based materials specifically designed for students with ID. Currently, most available materials are intended to be used in mainstream education, potentially leaving special education teachers unaware of resources tailored for students with ID.

It was also argued, in the subtheme ‘Positive to use two types of applications’, that being able to monitor the small steps of progress in both applications, clearly increased the student’s motivation. The applications provided this visualisation for both the students and their teacher, and as previous research reports, the use of CAI provided the opportunity to increase the students’ attention and motivation [43, 46, 47]. However, challenges for both teachers and students, became clear in the subtheme ‘Motivating… but less fun in the long run?’. For example, some students lost interest more quickly than others. In such cases, teachers had to put in extra effort to motivate them, for example, by offering rewards after lessons. In addition, some students found it bothersome when the content did not align with their own expectations, leading to frustration with the material.

Structured teaching, such as the TEACCH programme [65], is often used in special education and highlights the explicit structure of education including what to do, where to do it, with whom and for how long. Although special education is characterised by this structure in several aspects, this study clearly shows that structure exists at different levels. The teachers emphasised the importance not only for the overall structure but also of creating structure for the tasks themselves. A clear beginning, progression, and end to each task created a peaceful working environment, and motivation increased when the student saw their own progress. The current study thus show how literacy instruction also needs to be combined with systematic teaching, including well-planned literacy lessons, and having materials to support this, as exemplified by the applications.

In the meta-analysis of interventions using the GraphoGame application [50], it was reported that the application could not alone account for the students’ improvement in reading. Instead, it was the teacher’s engagement and interaction with the student working with the application that was related to positive change. In present study, the subtheme ‘Teacher’s role’, described how the teachers used their imagination and knowledge to motivate the students to take part in the learning activity, all to create a supportive teaching environment. Research focusing the comprehension-based application Animega-is corroborates this critical aspect [16, 17, 45, 66], and many teachers perceived that the use of this application led to meaningful and joyful conversations.

Did the teachers perceive any change in literacy development and communication of their students during the literacy intervention?

All teachers expressed that the intervention influenced their students’ literacy development positively in some way. Considering that the students were at an early literacy level, and the intervention lasted for only 12 weeks, many teachers could still observe a change in the literacy development. In this sense, our findings corroborate with prior research [25–28] and the recommendations formulated by the National Literacy Panel [29]. Further, the findings align with the perspective that students with varying levels of ID and communication difficulties can acquire literacy [30–33]. As noted in the Cochrane review by Reichow et al. [22], teaching literacy skills to children and young adults with ID may improve phonological awareness, letter-sound knowledge, and word recognition, which were in line with the experiences expressed by the teachers in our study. Although generalizing knowledge outside the application could be challenging for this population, teachers emphasized this aspect in relation to literacy. They observed that the intervention had a positive impact on the general interest of literacy and that it raised awareness of letters and written words in the surroundings. Several of the students also enhanced their understanding of letter-sound knowledge and some even taking their skills higher by cracking the code of reading.

But the students’ progress should be interpreted in the light of the difficulties in differentiating between new and pre-existing knowledge and skills in students with ID. As some teachers implied in the subtheme ‘…but not for everyone’, this may be even more difficult when the students have communication difficulties. Did the student have skills that the teacher had not noticed before, or did the student acquire the skills during the intervention? The importance of conducting thorough and accurate assessments for this target group in terms of literacy is vital, both to determine the appropriate level for instruction and to evaluate the choice of literacy instruction.

Even if communication development was not the focus in the DiLL literacy intervention, many of the teachers noticed a change in the student’s communicative skills similar to some other studies of literacy interventions [20, 30, 34, 35]. As described in the theme ‘positive to use two types of applications’, some teachers perceived the comprehension-based application more enjoyable and motivating for the students. This led to plenty of opportunities for conversations about the content of Animega-is, which could possibly support the language development of the students [15]. This was perhaps particularly true for those who had limited interest in literacy before the intervention. However, many teachers perceived a greater educational benefit of the phonic-based approach. In this approach, more attention was given to producing speech sounds, and it raised the awareness of phonemes in words. In the qualitative study by Taylor et al. [30], which focused on teachers’ perceptions of using an explicit reading instruction for students with significant developmental disabilities, one of the participating teachers observed that her student started making vowel sounds, while another teacher remarked, ‘My students are starting to do beginning sounds and ending sounds.’ (p.533). Supported by simultaneous visual input of the written word and auditory input of the sounds [37], our digital combined literacy approach seemed to have strengthened the phoneme-grapheme connection and provided valuable practice in communication for students with ID and communication difficulties, according to the teachers. This indicates that enhancing literacy knowledge may also provide a positive effect on language. Any second gains for a student when practicing literacy, could be of great benefit for the individual.

Taking part in a research project – a prominent theme

The teachers expressed the engaging effect of participating in the research project as something positive for everyone involved. Being included in research is not something that happens every day. While participating in the project, the teachers observed the students’ personal growth and felt that the students acknowledged their own potential. Their ability to stay motivated and learn new skills sometimes even surprised and exceeded the teachers’ expectations. Teachers are faced with students having different needs in the same classroom and for some, limited time for one-on-one education with the teacher despite the high teacher–student ratio, but this research project provided them with more time for these interactions. This was made possible with support from both management and other colleagues who also prioritised this literacy project.

Implications for practice

Our findings lead to several important implications for practise in educational settings. Firstly, that teaching literacy to this target group not only has an effect on literacy, but according to the teachers view, seem to have a secondary effect in stimulating communication, language and speech. Literacy education is included in the school curriculum and based on the teachers views in this study, an implication is to follow a systematic combined approach, including both phonics and comprehension as part of the instruction. By having a systematic approach, not just throughout the day but also within individual tasks, is another key implication. Teachers would benefit from clear materials guiding the teaching of phonics and comprehension in a step-by-step way. Finally, the teachers report that they often struggle with motivating students with ID and communication difficulties, and using a digital tool with motivating features may help with this.

Limitations and future research

The teachers themselves signed up to participate in the literacy intervention and interviews, which means they most likely already had a positive interest in the intervention from the start. There is a risk that participating teachers portray an idealized narrative of their students’ development as they themselves would like to see progress. Although this may be true, the teachers also highlighted the difficulties their students faced in acquiring literacy skills, as well as the challenges of keeping the students’ motivated during the intervention. Therefore, it cannot be conclusively determined that these eight teachers represented all 21 teachers’ perspectives. Thus, their perspectives provide vital information when doing research on literacy learning and literacy instruction with the target group.

Another limitation was that the teachers did not have the same number of students to teach during the intervention, which could affect the experiences that they could share in the interviews. Teaching more than one student may have provided more insights into how and for whom the applications worked, and how they could adapt the applications to different students.

The teachers did not have any students with severe ID, and the perceptions could be different for those teachers, therefore future research need to include them as well. As important it is to continue seeking the teachers’ perspectives when implementing a method or trying a new application in education, but we also need to address the students themselves. Even though it may be challenging to collect the students’ perspective, especially when it comes to students with ID and communication difficulties. So, for future research, interviewing the participating students is very important, and taking necessary considerations and adaptations for optimising their communicative participation.

Conclusions

In this study, four dyads of teachers were interviewed on their perceptions of working with a literacy intervention that combined the use of phonemic and comprehension-based applications. The teachers highlighted the importance of a systematic and focused education for this population and that the applications assisted in achieving this. This study also provides insights into how important the teacher–student interaction is for both motivation and for development of skills such as literacy and, for some, communication development more generally.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all participating teachers and students as well as their families for allowing us to come to the school and meet all the students during difficult times due to Covid-19. We are very grateful that you participated in both the literacy intervention and the subsequent interviews related to the study.

Disclosure statement

Mikael Heimann and Mats Lundälv are co-creators and copyright holders of Animega- interactive sentences which is freely available. The data collection and data analyses have been performed by the other co-authors and no conflict of interest has been present.

Additional information

Funding

The research was supported by grants from the Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg Foundation [Grant no. 2018-0084], the Swedish Research Council [Grant no. 2018-04702], Sävstaholm Foundation [Grant no. 2023-006] and Linnea and Josef Carlsson Memorial Foundation.