‘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

Figures & data

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.

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?

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).

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