Currents in Literacy

Access to Literacy Instruction by Students with Developmental Disabilities in Kindergarten or First Grade

By Susan Gurry and Anne Larkin

In recent years, there has been a dramatic shift in the education of students with intensive special needs from substantially separate classrooms and schools to inclusionary, public school-based models. In this project, we examined the way six young children with developmental disabilities were actively engaged in the literacy practices which occurred regularly in their kindergarten or first grade level program. In literacy-rich primary classrooms, there are typically a great number of opportunities daily for children to explore, experiment, practice their emergent reading and writing skills, and remain fully engaged in real activities. The mere presence of children with significant disabilities in inclusive, literacy-rich classrooms does not in itself ensure that they are attending, focusing, actively listening, responding, and involved in reading, writing, speaking, and listening. There is little research on the topic of emergent literacy and children with developmental disabilities, and little research on how emergent literacy practices in classrooms affect included children with developmental disabilities. We believe that it is essential for educators to develop a greater understanding of the ways in which these students are, or are not, actively engaged and directly involved in literacy activities in their classrooms.

Therefore, with this information in mind, we agreed to explore the following major question for this descriptive study: "Given a literacy-rich environment, how are children with developmental disabilities actively engaged in the daily literacy practices?"

Procedures and Methods

Over a two-year period, the authors and several graduate assistants observed in six different inclusion classrooms at the primary level, in four different cities, towns, and suburban schools. A maximum of ten visits worth of data to each site were obtained. Each program also had a slightly different concept of "inclusion" and used various staff/student models to implement inclusion. The target students observed were between the ages of five and seven and had been diagnosed with a variety of developmental disabilities including: autism, Down's Syndrome, cerebral palsy with mental retardation, and severe behavior and language challenges. In addition to detailed field notes, two observational scales were adapted from prior research (Vogt, 1991; Rhodes, Shanklin and Milner, 1993) to record the abundance of literacy activities at each site. Classroom activities and literacy materials were photographed, videotaped, or otherwise photocopied at each site. Interviews were conducted with each teacher. This approach permitted a close study of the nature of the literacy involvement of the student with developmental disabilities, and of each classroom as a whole. As of this writing, we have begun to study the data and have completed a preliminary review of four students.

Stories and Thoughts

For the purpose of this article, we were able to review the data of four of the six students observed. Of these four, two had pervasive developmental disorder/autism, and two had Down's Syndrome; two were kindergartners, and two were first graders. All four students were labeled "target children" and identified at the schools as "inclusion students." The teachers and administrators in each school were welcoming to the children and to the observers throughout the project. In addition, the teachers were eager to hear the results of the study, to know more about emergent literacy with children with developmental disabilities, and to learn more about how best to teach their entire classroom of children to read and write. Their concern and willingness to share information so that it might improve both their own teaching and the practice of others was heartwarming; clearly, the questions we were asking, and hoping to answer, were similar to the questions for which these teachers felt great responsibility. As observers and researchers, it was a goal of ours to learn from the practitioners, and then be able to share what we learned. (In late spring of 1998, we will host a reception for the practitioners involved in the study, share what we've learned, hear feedback from those teachers, and perhaps continue on together in a college/practice partnership.)

Key Areas Across All Classrooms

As we observed the different inclusion classrooms, we decided to record key areas that were evident in all of the classrooms. Within these classes, there were commonly observed events, procedures, literacy opportunities, and models. Each classroom had a higher-than-typical teacher-to-student ratio, with approximately two teachers to about 20 or 22 students. In one classroom of 20 students, there was one teacher with two special needs assistants who were participants in a Master's Degree Internship Program at a local college. Although their presence lowered the staff-to-student ratio, their skills were not fully developed in the fall during the time period of this observation. They were supervised both by the classroom teacher and the inclusion specialist at the school, as well as a college faculty person who visited the classroom. In another classroom, a fully certified special needs teacher team-taught daily with the general educator, sharing skills, planning, and teaching regularly. An intern from a local college also helped to staff this classroom.

All agreed that for inclusion to work, even at the primary grade level with small classes, there needed to be more than one teacher in the classroom. The children with developmental disabilities were as needy as many of the children there for routine, support, one-on-one and small group activities, enrichment, and daily activities. Although we observed several different teaming models, the essence of the "team" as being important was never questioned.

Also, independent of one another, each educator interviewed stated that there was a great need of more planning time, continued/extra supports, and high expectations for all educators involved in inclusion models. These findings were reflective of the needs of inclusion environments above and beyond the specific needs of literacy learning in the classrooms.

Preliminary Findings

At all of the sites, literacy learning is a serious focal point in the primary grades observed, and in the schools as a whole. The observed classrooms were very rich, diverse, developmental, with many opportunities for reading, creative writing, small groups and large groups, and practice in beginning and emergent literacy activities; still, the literacy learning opportunities varied across each site and within each classroom. The kinds of interventions we observed impacted how the target children used the printed material. For example, in all the classrooms, there were printed schedules, days of the week, thematic units, interest centers, writing workshops, silent reading, paired reading, and buddy reading. However, for some of the students with developmental disabilities, they may spend most of the class period scribbling until approached by and assisted by an adult. Or, during "author's chair" time, there was a target student who had dictated his words to an assistant teacher but did not have that same assistant around to help him sound them out again, or read them, to his classmates. Instead, he simplified the story he had told and was applauded for his contribution by his classmates. In this last example, the "target child" was treated exactly like a typical child would have been in the same situation. In those observed situations, additional prompting to complete the task at a higher level would have been helpful.

Clearly, in any observational study one is going to find examples of missed opportunities for instruction. In these classrooms, however, the notion that literacy learning is a social process and that children learn through social interactions was evident throughout. Target children in the mainstream were expected to perform most, if not all, tasks at the same level as their peers, often with the assistance of a peer. Time spent on literacy instruction varied across the sites for the target children, and it will be interesting to compare the amount of time spent in the kindergarten and the first grade classes.

We are very much at the beginning of this long-term attempt to analyze our data, meet with colleagues, and expand our own knowledge of literacy learning for children with developmental disabilities. The two authors have spent several years in an informal relationship with The Center for Literacy and Disability Studies in Durham, North Carolina, the only national and international center examining and implementing emergent literacy strategies for students with intensive special needs. We attended and presented at the 7th annual conference in Durham, in January 1998. As presenters and participants in the conference, we were asked to help answer the question, "So what happens now?" with our information. We paired up this question to our data and came up with four categories to use as a framework.

The Classroom

Essentially, the structure of the room and the utilization of the structure were factors in how much time each child spent on literacy activities. One classroom had two team teachers and was very solidly scheduled, and there was, according to the observer's field notes, "never a down moment" for the target child or the other children. In another classroom, however, although the day was very well organized and carefully scheduled, the target child managed to delay starting on a writing task for several minutes by going to one table for paper, another table for a pencil, back to his desk, then off to another table for something else, with another stop for paper on the way back to his seat. In the little time that it took him to do these activities, the other students had already begun serious work on their writing. This class was built so that students could get materials as they needed them, so he was simply doing what the other children were also able to do; however, he was slower in starting so he had less time to write.

The Identified Students

In all classrooms observed it was clear that the "inclusion process" itself was working fine. The target children were all active members of their classroom communities, were seen as comfortable in their classrooms and with their teachers, and were in an atmosphere where differences were widely known and respected. Some of them had behaviors which could have been distracting to other children and adults, but their behaviors were not seen or handled as if they were disruptive. In one particular kindergarten class, the target student yelled "Stop!" several times to her classmate at her table since they were sharing the same box of crayons; she clearly did not want to share, and her classmate just continued quietly to do her work. In other words, the target student's behavior was a minor distraction to her classmates, and not a disrupting influence. In the classrooms we observed, "kids were just kids" and accepted as that. It was a delight to see.

The Personnel

Everywhere we have presented our findings, educators ask us how staffing is used in inclusive environments. In the environments in this study, staffing patterns were all different from one another. All classrooms had some combination of teachers, student teachers, and aides. Specialists in areas such as O.T., P.T., Speech and Language, Movement, Art, Physical Education, and Music were also all very much a part of the students' programs. We observed so many different structures -- even in the four classrooms analyzed to date -- that it is impossible to describe them adequately here.

We did observe, however, that in all classrooms, the direct teaching staff all spent time with the identified student(s). In no situation was there simply a "one-on-one" teacher aide. Rather, all educators spent individual time with identified students, had a physical presence even when not directly engaged, had both intermittent and continuous interactions, and worked with all children in small and large groups. The specialists in the four classrooms did pull-outs -- with the whole class and individuals -- and did a variety of pull-in lessons as well. The pull-outs and pull-ins were in several styles: as a large group, in small groups, teaming with other teachers, or working independently with an individual.

Literacy/Academic Issues

The list of literacy materials in each classroom is long and complicated. Students engaged in reading their names, classmates' names, schedules, poems, written work, choral readings, and many other words. If we were examining whether or not the students had the opportunities to use print in many meaningful ways in their classrooms, the answer would be a solid "Yes." For the most part, the target students did spend a great deal of their time actively engaged with print material. For this to happen in each classroom there needed to be, and there were, curriculum adaptations, special accommodations, and spontaneous changes made on-the-spot to help a student. For example, in one setting an O.T. came in to do some printing and fine motor work with a target child, and found out that something the class was working on was also geared to similar outcomes. She readily adapted to the existing, rather than her predetermined, schedule.

The comings and goings of the specialists and staff were tolerated quite well in these primary classrooms. There were sometimes as many as five adults in a classroom of 20 children, even if only for a transition period. Once or twice, the inclusion specialist came in to do a lesson, saw that there were many adults in the room, and told the classroom teacher "I'll be back." He made a quick decision based on a pre- arrangement with the classroom teacher, both of whom felt that too many adults in the room at one time was not beneficial to the students This was, in fact, one of the "special accommodations" which had to be made on-the-spot, and had to do with materials, flexibility, and adapting the school and school day curriculum.

Next Steps

As we asked the question "So what happens now?" of ourselves and our research, we have begun to ask more specific questions about the literacy engagement of the target students in these inclusion classrooms. The first question that comes to mind is, "What is the length of time the identified students attend to each task?" Additional questions related to this research, and to the continued improvement of instruction in all schools and classrooms for students with substantially separate special needs, are: How different is this amount of time from the typical peers in class? What is the length of time needed to get back on task? What types of interventions get the children back on task?

As we continue to analyze our current data and continue the research, we hope it will yield results that will help practitioners assist all students particularly students with developmental disabilities -- with reading and writing tasks, using an emergent literacy perspective in inclusion classrooms.

Susan Gurry, Ed.D. is an Associate Professor in the School of Education at Lesley University and has been a member of the faculty for fifteen years. Dr. Gurry is the Director of the Intensive Special Needs Program at Lesley and taught special education in the public schools for ten years. Her professional interests are Autism, other developmental disabilities, and inclusion.

Anne Larkin, Ph.D. is a Professor in the School of Education at Lesley University, with a concentration in special education. Dr. Larkin has been a faculty member at Lesley for thirty-one years and has been the Director of the Say Yes to Education Scholarship Program since 1991. Her professional interests are Autism and related fields, inclusion, and scholarship programs.