Evidence-Based Literacy Instruction for Individuals Who Require Augmentative and Alternative Communication: A Case Study of a Student with Multiple Disabilities

ABSTRACT

Literacy skills provide numerous benefits to individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), including new opportunities for education, work, and social interaction. Literacy skills also have a powerful impact on communication and language development. This paper describes the components of effective evidence-based literacy instruction, including skills to target for instruction, effective instructional procedures to teach these skills, and adaptations to accommodate the needs of individuals with significant speech, motor, and other disabilities. The paper also presents a case study that describes ongoing intervention with an 8-year-old girl with multiple disabilities who required AAC. Evidence-based instruction was provided in phonologic awareness, letter-sound correspondences, decoding, sight-word recognition, reading connected text, reading comprehension skills, and early writing and keyboarding skills. During the 16 months of intervention, a total of 55 hours of instruction, the student acquired 20 letter-sound correspondences, learned to use decoding and sight-word skills to read 60 words, and began to read simple texts both in shared reading activities and independently. She also began to type simple short messages and stories using spelling approximations. The acquisition of these new literacy skills resulted in increased educational opportunities for the learner and also enhanced her language and communication skills.

Augmentative and alternative communication - literacy - reading - writing

REFERENCES

• 1 Koppenhaver D A, Evans D A, Yoder D E. Childhood reading and writing experiences of literate adults with severe speech and motor impairments.  Augment Altern Commun. 1991;  7 20-33
• 2 In: Light J, McNaughton D Accessible Literacy Learning: Evidence-based Reading Instruction for Learners with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Down Syndrome, and Other Disabilities. Solana Beach, CA; Mayer Johnson in press
• 3 DeRuyter F, McNaughton D, Caves K, Bryen D N, Williams M. Enhancing AAC connections with the world.  Augment Altern Commun. 2007;  23 258-270
• 4 Sturm J M, Clendon S A. Augmentative and alternative communication, language, and literacy: fostering the relationship.  Top Lang Dis. 2004;  24 76-91
• 5 Kelford Smith A, Thurston S, Light J, Parnes P, O'Keefe B. The form and use of written communication produced by physically disabled individuals using microcomputers.  Augment Altern Commun. 1989;  5 115-124
• 6 Koppenhaver D, Yoder D. Literacy issues in persons with severe speech and physical impairments. In: Gaylord-Ross R Issues and Research in Special Education. New York, NY; Teachers College Press 1992: 156-201
• 7 Lund S K, Light J. Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: part I–what is a “good” outcome?.  Augment Altern Commun. 2006;  22 284-299
• 8 Browder D M, Wakeman S, Spooner F, Ahlgrim-Delzell L, Algozzine B. Research on reading for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities.  Except Child. 2006;  72 392-408
• 9 Sturm J M, Spadorcia S A, Cunningham J W et al.. What happens to reading between first and third grade? Implications for students who use AAC.  Augment Altern Commun. 2006;  22 21-36
• 10 Light J, McNaughton D. Addressing the literacy demands of the curriculum for conventional and more advanced readers and writers who require AAC. In: Soto G, Zangari C Practically Speaking: Language, Literacy, and Academic Development for Students with AAC Needs. Baltimore, MD; Brookes in press
• 11 National Reading Panel .Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instruction: Reports of the Subgroups. Washington, DC; U.S. Government Printing Office 2000 NIH Publication No. 00–4754
• 12 Fallon K A, Light J, McNaughton D, Drager K, Hammer C. The effects of direct instruction on the single-word reading skills of children who require augmentative and alternative communication.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004;  47 1424-1439
• 13 Millar D, Light J, McNaughton D. The effect of direct instruction and writers workshop on the early writing skills of children who use augmentative and alternative communication.  Augment Altern Commun. 2004;  20 164-178
• 14 Adams M J. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press 1994
• 15 Light J. “Let's go star fishing”: reflections on the contexts of language learning for children who use aided AAC.  Augment Altern Commun. 1997;  13 158-171
• 16 Stanovich K E. Matthew effects in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.  Read Res Q. 1986;  21 360-407
• 17 Wagner R K, Torgesen J K, Rashotte C A. Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: new evidence of bi-directional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study.  Dev Psychol. 1994;  30 73-87
• 18 Bishop D V. Spelling ability in congenital dysarthria: evidence against articulatory coding in translating between phonemes and graphemes.  Cogn Neuropsychol. 1985;  2 229-251
• 19 Bishop D V, Robson J. Accurate non-word spelling despite congenital inability to speak: phoneme-grapheme conversion does not require subvocal articulation.  Br J Psychol. 1989;  80 1-13
• 20 Card R, Dodd B. The phonological awareness abilities of children with cerebral palsy who do not speak.  Augment Altern Commun. 2006;  22 149-159
• 21 Dahlgren Sandberg A. Reading and spelling abilities in children with severe speech impairments and cerebral palsy at 6, 9, and 12 years of age in relation to cognitive development: a longitudinal study.  Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006;  48 629-634
• 22 Foley B E. The development of literacy in individuals with severe congenital speech and motor impairments.  Top Lang Dis. 1993;  13 16-32
• 23 Foley B E, Pollatsek A. Phonological processing and reading abilities in adolescents and adults with severe congenital speech impairments.  Augment Altern Commun. 1999;  15 156-173
• 24 Vandervelden M, Siegel L. Phonological processing and literacy in AAC users and students with motor speech impairments.  Augment Altern Commun. 1999;  15 191-211
• 25 Lovett M W, Steinbach K A. The effectiveness of remedial programs for reading disabled children of different ages: does the benefit decrease for older children?.  Learn Disab Q. 1997;  20 189-210
• 26 Wagner R K, Torgesen J K. The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills.  Psychol Bull. 1987;  101 192-212
• 27 Light J, McNaughton D, Fallon K A. Teaching phonological awareness skills: sound blending skills. In: Light J, McNaughton D Accessible Literacy Learning: Evidence-Based Reading Instruction for Learners with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Down Syndrome, and Other Disabilities. Solana Beach, CA; Mayer Johnson in press
• 28 Light J, McNaughton D. Maximizing the literacy skills of individuals who require AAC [webcast]. Available at http://mcn.ed.psu.edu/dbm/Light_Reading/index.htm Accessed February 10, 2008
• 29 Ball E W, Blachman B A. Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling?.  Read Res Q. 1991;  6 2649-2666
• 30 Light J, McNaughton D, Fallon K A, Millar D. Teaching phonological awareness skills: phoneme segmentation. In: Light J, McNaughton D Teaching Individuals Who Require Augmentative and Alternative Communication to Read: Evidence Based Practices. Solana Beach, CA; Mayer Johnson in press
• 31 Blischak D M, Shah S D, Lombardino L J, Chiarella K. Effects of phonemic awareness instruction on the encoding skills of children with severe speech impairment.  Disabil Rehabil. 2004;  26 1295-1304
• 32 Carnine D, Silbert J, Kame'enui E, Tarver S. Direct Instruction Reading. Upper Saddle River, NJ; Pearson 2004
• 33 Wolff Heller K, Fredrick L D, Tumlin J, Brineman D G. Teaching decoding for generalization using the Nonverbal Reading Approach.  J Dev Phys Disabil. 2002;  14 19-35
• 34 Copeland S R, Keefe E B. Effective Literacy Instruction for Students with Moderate or Severe Disabilities. Baltimore, MD; Brookes 2007
• 35 Light J, McNaughton D. Evidence-based literacy intervention for individuals who require AAC. Presented at: Annual Meeting of the American Speech and Hearing Association November 15–17, 2007 Boston, MA;
• 36 Kameenui E J, Simmons D C. Designing Instructional Strategies: The Prevention of Academic Learning Problems. Columbus, OH; Merrill 1990
• 37 Rosenshine B, Stevens R. Teaching functions. In: Wittrock MC Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York, NY; Macmillan 1986: 376-391
• 38 Light J, McNaughton D. Effectiveness of the literacy instruction: research results and case examples of evidence-based practice. In: Light J, McNaughton D Accessible Literacy Learning: Evidence-Based Reading Instruction for Learners with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Down Syndrome, and Other Disabilities. Solana Beach, CA; Mayer Johnson in press