‘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

References

• Beukelman DR, Light JC. Augmentative & alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. In: Light JC, editor. Augmentative and alternative communication, 5th ed.: Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Erickson KA, Koppenhaver DA. Comprehensive literacy for all: teaching students with significant disabilities to read and write. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Light J, McNaughton D. Supporting the communication, language, and literacy development of children with complex communication needs: state of the science and future research priorities. Assist Technol. 2012;24(1):34–44. doi: 10.1080/10400435.2011.648717.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skolverket. Elever i grundsärskolan läsåret 2022/23. [Students in Compulsory school for students with ID 2022/23]. https://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=113092023.
   Google Scholar
• Skolverket. Elever i gymnasiesärskolan läsåret 2022/23 [Students in secondary school for students with ID 2022/2023]. https://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=112422023.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotskij LS. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard U.P.; 1978. (Cole M, editor.).
   Google Scholar
• Palmqvist L, Holmer E, Samuelsson J, et al. Improved phonological awareness in children with intellectual disability: A large-scale controlled intervention study combining phonics-based and comprehension-based digital reading instructions [Internet]. OSF Preprints. 2024. doi: 10.31219/osf.io/rwnfb
   Google Scholar
• Dessemontet RS, Linder A-L, Martinet C, et al. A descriptive study on reading instruction provided to students with intellectual disability. J Intellect Disabil. 2022;26(3):575–593. doi: 10.1177/17446295211016170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gough PB, Tunmer WE. Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial Special Educ. 1986;7(1):6–10. doi: 10.1177/074193258600700104.
   Google Scholar
• Hoover WA, Tunmer WE. The simple view of reading: three assessments of its adequacy. Remedial Special Educ. 2018;39(5):304–312. doi: 10.1177/0741932518773154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tunmer WE, Hoover WA. The cognitive foundations of learning to read: a framework for preventing and remediating reading difficulties. Aust J Learn Diffic. 2019;24(1):75–93. doi: 10.1080/19404158.2019.1614081.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castles A, Rastle K, Nation K. Ending the reading wars: reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2018;19(1):5–51. doi: 10.1177/1529100618772271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browder D, Wakeman S, Spooner F, et al. Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Except Child. 2006;72(4):392–408. doi: 10.1177/001440290607200401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heimann M, Gustafson S. Lärande, läsning och multimodalitet. In: Bjar L, Frylmark A, editors. Barn läser och skriver: specialpedagogiska perspektiv. 1. uppl. ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur; 2009. p. 193–208.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson KE, Welsh J, Camarata SM, et al. A rare event transactional model of tricky mix conditions contributing to ­language acquisition and varied communicative delays. New York, USA: Psychology Press; 2001. p. 165–195.
   Google Scholar
• Tjus T, Heimann M, Nelson KE. Gains in literacy through the use of a specially developed multimedia computer strategy: positive findings from 13 children with autism. Autism. 1998;2(2):139–156. doi: 10.1177/1362361398022003.
   Google Scholar
• Tjus T, Heimann M, Nelson KE. Interaction patterns between children and their teachers when using a specific multimedia and communication strategy: observations from children with autism and mixed intellectual disabilities. Autism. 2001;5(2):175–187. doi: 10.1177/1362361301005002007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ainsworth MK, Evmenova AS, Behrmann M, et al. Teaching phonics to groups of Middle school students with autism, intellectual disabilities and complex communication needs. Res Dev Disabil. 2016;56:165–176. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2016.06.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koppenhaver DA, Hendrix MP, Williams AR. Toward evidence-based literacy interventions for children with severe and multiple disabilities. Semin Speech Lang. 2007;28(1):79–89. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-967932.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Light J, McNaughton D. Literacy Instruction for Individuals with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Down Syndrome and Other Disabilities Penn State University: Penn State University; 2019. [cited 2022 Apr 06]. Available from: https://aacliteracy.psu.edu/index.php/page/show/id/2/index.html.
   Google Scholar
• Ahlgrim-Delzell L, Browder DM, Wood L, et al. Systematic instruction of phonics skills using an iPad for students with developmental disabilities who are AAC users. J Spec Educ. 2016;50(2):86–97. doi: 10.1177/0022466915622140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichow B, Lemons CJ, Maggin DM, et al. Beginning reading interventions for children and adolescents with intellectual disability. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;12(12):CD011359. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011359.pub2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sermier Dessemontet R, de Chambrier A-F, Martinet C, et al. Effects of a phonics-based intervention on the reading skills of students with intellectual disability. Res Dev Disabil. 2021;111:103883. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2021.103883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sermier Dessemontet R, Martinet C, de Chambrier A-F, et al. A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of phonics instruction for teaching decoding skills to students with intellectual disability. Educ Res Rev. 2019;26:52–70. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.01.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakken RK, Næss K-AB, Lemons CJ, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of reading and writing interventions for students with disorders of intellectual development. Educ Sci. 2021;11(10):638. doi: 10.3390/educsci11100638.
   Google Scholar
• Afacan K, Wilkerson KL, Ruppar AL. Multicomponent reading interventions for students with intellectual disability. Remedial Special Educ. 2018;39(4):229–242. doi: 10.1177/0741932517702444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alquraini TA, Rao SM. Developing and sustaining readers with intellectual and multiple disabilities: a systematic review of literature. Int J Dev Disabil. 2020;66(2):91–103. doi: 10.1080/20473869.2018.1489994.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allor JH, Mathes PG, Roberts JK, et al. Teaching students with moderate intellectual disabilities to read: an experimental examination of a comprehensive reading intervention. Educ Train Autism Dev Disabil. 2010;45(1):3–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Reading Panel (US). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read (report no. 00-4769). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD]; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor DB, Ahlgrim-Delzell L, Flowers C. A qualitative study of teacher perceptions on using an explicit instruction curriculum to teach early reading skills to students with significant developmental disabilities. Read Psychol. 2010;31(6):524–545. doi: 10.1080/02702710903256569.
   Google Scholar
• Conner C, Jones F, Ahlgrim-Delzell L, et al. What teachers know about teaching reading to students with developmental disabilities: a survey of special educators. Policy Pract Intel Disabil. 2022;19(3):300–310. doi: 10.1111/jppi.12406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruppar AL, Dymond SK, Gaffney JS. Teachers’ perspectives on literacy instruction for students with severe disabilities who use augmentative and alternative communication. Res Pract Persons Severe Disabil. 2011;36(3–4):100–111. doi: 10.2511/027494811800824435.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts-Tyler EJ, Beverley M, Hughes JC, et al. Teaching conventional early reading skills to children with intellectual disabilities in special schools in the UK: a survey of current practices and perceived barriers. Eur J Special Needs Educ. 2021;36(4):485–501. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2020.1764810.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight R-A, Kurtz S, Georgiadou I. Speech production in children with Down’s syndrome: the effects of reading, naming and imitation. Clin Linguist Phon. 2015;29(8–10):598–612. doi: 10.3109/02699206.2015.1019006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckley S, Bird G. Teaching children with Down syndrome to read. Downs Syndr Res Pract. 1993;1(1):34–39. doi: 10.3104/perspectives.9.
   Google Scholar
• Bock AK, Erickson KA. The influence of teacher epistemology and practice on student engagement in literacy learning. Res Pract Persons Severe Disabil. 2015;40(2):138–153. doi: 10.1177/1540796915591987.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saletta M. Orthography and speech production in children with good or poor reading skills. Appl Psycholinguist. 2019;40(4):905–931. doi: 10.1017/S0142716419000055.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ogletree BT. Augmentative and alternative communication: challenges and solutions. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing, Inc.; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Sturm JM, Erickson K, Yoder DE. Enhancing literacy development through AAC technologies. Assist Technol. 2002;14(1):71–80. doi: 10.1080/10400435.2002.10132056.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Erickson KA, Hatch P, Clendon S. Literacy, assistive technology, and students with significant disabilities. focusXchild. 2010;42(5):1–16. doi: 10.17161/foec.v42i5.6904.
   Google Scholar
• Alqahtani SS. Ipad text-to-speech and repeated reading to improve reading comprehension for students with SLD. Read Writ Q. 2023;39(1):1–15. doi: 10.1080/10573569.2021.1987363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holyfield C, Light J, McNaughton D, et al. Effect of AAC technology with dynamic text on the single-word recognition of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities [article]. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2020;22(2):129–140. doi: 10.1080/17549507.2019.1619836.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNaughton D, Light J. The iPad and mobile technology revolution: Benefits and challenges for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun. 2013;29(2):107–116. doi: 10.3109/07434618.2013.784930.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thunberg G, Ahlsén E, Dahlgren Sandberg A. Autism, communication and use of a speech-generating device in different environments – a case study. J Assist Technol. 2011;5(4):181–198. doi: 10.1108/17549451111190605.
   Google Scholar
• Heimann M, Nelson K, Tjus T, et al. Increasing reading and communication skills in children with autism through an interactive multimedia computer program. J Autism Dev Disord. 1995;25(5):459–480. doi: 10.1007/BF02178294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fälth L, Gustafson S, Tjus T, et al. Computer-assisted interventions targeting reading skills of children with reading Disabilities - A longitudinal study. Dyslexia. 2013;19(1):37–53. doi: 10.1002/dys.1450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svensson I, Nordström T, Lindeblad E, et al. Effects of assistive technology for students with reading and writing disabilities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;16(2):196–208. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2019.1646821.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goo M, Myers D, Maurer AL, et al. Effects of using an iPad to teach early literacy skills to elementary students with intellectual disability. Intellect Dev Disabil. 2020;58(1):34–48. doi: 10.1352/1934-9556-58.1.34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakeva von Mentzer C, Kalnak N, Jennische M. Intensive computer-based phonics training in the educational setting of children with down syndrome: an explorative study. J Intellect Disabil. 2020;25(4):636–660. doi: 10.1177/1744629520911297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McTigue EM, Solheim OJ, Zimmer WK, et al. Critically reviewing GraphoGame across the world: recommendations and cautions for research and implementation of Computer-Assisted instruction for word-reading acquisition. Read Res Q. 2020;55(1):45–73. doi: 10.1002/rrq.256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers-Denman CN, Plante E. Dose schedule and enhanced conversational recast treatment for children with specific language impairment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2016;47(4):334–346. doi: 10.1044/2016_LSHSS-15-0064.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke MT, Soto G, Nelson K. Language learning, recasts, and interaction involving AAC: background and potential for intervention. Augment Altern Commun. 2017;33(1):42–50. doi: 10.1080/07434618.2016.1278130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atanga C, Jones BA, Krueger LE, et al. Teachers of students with learning disabilities: assistive technology knowledge, perceptions, interests, and barriers. J Spec Educ Technol. 2020;35(4):236–248. doi: 10.1177/0162643419864858.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fälth L, Selenius H. Primary school teachers’ use and perception of digital technology in early reading and writing education in inclusive settings. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2022;1–10. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2022.2125089.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flanagan S, Bouck EC, Richardson J. Middle school special education teachers’ perceptions and use of assistive technology in literacy instruction. Assist Technol. 2013;25(1):24–30. doi: 10.1080/10400435.2012.682697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heimann M, Lundälv M. Animega–interactive sentences (Animega-is). Topic Data & Språkbehandling HB; 2020. Available from: https://animega-is.se/.
   Google Scholar
• Light J, McNaughton D, Weyer M, et al. Evidence-Based literacy instruction for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: a case study of a student with multiple disabilities. Semin Speech Lang. 2008;29(2):120–132. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1079126.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Biggs EE, Carter EW, Gilson CB. Systematic review of interventions involving aided AAC modeling for children with complex communication needs. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2018;123(5):443–473. doi: 10.1352/1944-7558-123.5.443.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morgan DL. Essentials of dyadic interviewing. Vol. 13. New York, NY: Routledge; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Lobe B, Morgan DL. Assessing the effectiveness of video-based interviewing: a systematic comparison of video-conferencing based dyadic interviews and focus groups. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2021;24(3):301–312. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2020.1785763.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan DL, Hoffman K. A system for coding the interaction in focus groups and dyadic interviews. Qual Report. 2018;23(3):519–531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Couns Psychother Res. 2021;21(1):37–47. doi: 10.1002/capr.12360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Mesibov GB, Shea V, Schopler E. The TEACCH approach to autism spectrum disorders. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Heimann M, Nelson KE, Tjus T, et al. Omega–interactive sentences, a multimedia software for language exploration and play. (www.omega-is.se). Göteborg:Topic Data & Språkbehandling HB; 2004.
   Google Scholar