Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2017; 38(04): 253-262
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1604273
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Challenges and Opportunities in Reading Instruction for Children with Limited Speech

Andrea Barton-Hulsey
1   Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
11 September 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The ability to read has implications for communication development for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems. Access to print for generative language provides a flexible system in which an individual can create novel messages and interact with his or her family, friends, and peers. Several challenges in reading instruction inherently exist for individuals who have limitations in speech ability. Reading instruction is becoming increasingly more accessible with current advances in technology; however, several challenges remain regarding the creation of accessible learning environments, assessment tools, and reading intervention strategies for children with limited speech. The current article provides an overview of the role of the speech-language pathologist in reading instruction and particularly addresses children's need for more experience with instruction in phonological awareness and decoding, an area that has presented the greatest challenge in access to reading instruction for individuals who use AAC. Several considerations are presented to increase access to instruction with directions for future research highlighted.

Keywords

Augmentative and alternative communication - intellectual and developmental disability - phonological awareness - reading - decoding
 

  • References

  • 1 Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C. The health literacy of America's adults: results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. NCES 2006; 6: 1-59
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Boyle CA, Boulet S, Schieve LA. , et al. Trends in the prevalence of developmental disabilities in US children, 1997-2008. Pediatrics 2011; 127 (06) 1034-1042
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Beukelman DR, Mirenda P. Principles of decision making, intervention and evaluation. In: Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Supporting Children and Adults with Complex Communication Needs. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing; 2005: 187-200
    Google Scholar
  • 4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Child Health and Human Development. Report of the National Reading Panel (NIH Publication No. 004769). Available at: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/documents/report.pdf . Accessed July 31, 2017
    PubMed
  • 5 Machalicek W, Sanford A, Lang R, Rispoli M, Molfenter N, Mbeseha MK. Literacy interventions for students with physical and developmental disabilities who use aided AAC devices: a systematic review. J Dev Phys Disabil 2009; 22 (03) 219-240
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Binger C, Kent-Walsh J, Berens J, Del Campo S, Rivera D. Teaching Latino parents to support the multi-symbol message productions of their children who require AAC. Augment Altern Commun 2008; 24 (04) 323-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Browder DM, Ahlgrim-Delzell L, Courtade G, Gibbs SL, Flowers C. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of an early literacy program for students with significant developmental disabilities. Except Child 2008; 75 (01) 33-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Koppenhaver DA, Erickson KA, Skotko BG. Supporting communication of girls with Rett syndrome and their mothers in storybook reading. Int J Disabil Dev Educ 2001; 48 (04) 395-410
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Coleman-Martin MB, Heller KW, Cihak DF, Irvine KL. Using computer-assisted instruction and the nonverbal reading approach to teach word identification. Focus Autism Other Dev Disabl 2005; 20 (02) 80-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Erickson K, Hanser G, Hatch P, Sanders E. Research-based practices for creating access to the general curriculum in reading and literacy for students with significant intellectual disabilities. Chapel Hill 2009;175
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hoover WA, Gough PB. The simple view of reading. Read Writ An Interdiscip J. 1990; 2: 127-160
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Michael Barker R, Saunders KJ, Brady NC. Reading instruction for children who use AAC: considerations in the pursuit of generalizable results. Augment Altern Commun 2012; 28 (03) 160-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ahlgrim-Delzell L, Browder D, Wood L. Effects of systematic instruction and an augmentative communication device on phonics skills acquisition for students who are nonverbal. Educ Train Autism Dev Disabil 2014; 49 (04) 517-532
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ahlgrim-Delzell L, Browder DM, Wood L, Stanger C, Preston AI, Kemp-Inman A. Systematic instruction of phonics skills using an iPad for students with developmental disabilities who are AAC users. J Spec Educ 2016; 50 (02) 86-970
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bailey RL, Angell ME, Stoner JB. Improving literacy skills in students with complex communication needs who use augmentative / alternative communication systems. Educ Train Dev Disabil 2011; 46 (03) 352-368
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Benedek-Wood E, McNaughton D, Light J. Instruction in letter-sound correspondences for children with autism and limited speech. Top Early Child Spec Educ 2016; 36 (01) 43-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 McCarthy JH, Hogan TP, Beukelman DR, Schwarz IE. Influence of computerized sounding out on spelling performance for children who do and do not rely on AAC. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2015; 10 (03) 221-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Perfetti C. The universal grammar of reading. Sci Stud Read 2009; 7 (01) 3-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ehri LC. Teaching phonemic awareness and phonics: an explanation of the national reading panel meta-analyses. In: McCardle PE, Chhabra V. , eds. The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes; 2004: 153-186
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Conners FA. Reading instruction for students with moderate mental retardation: review and analysis of research. Am J Ment Retard 1992; 96 (06) 577-597
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Connor CM, Alberto PA, Compton DL, O'Connor RE. Improving reading outcomes for students with or at risk for reading disabilities: a synthesis of the contributions from the Institute of Education Sciences Research Centers. NCSER 2014–3000. Natl Cent Spec Educ Res 2014; 108
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Romski M, Sevcik RA, Adamson LB. , et al. Randomized comparison of augmented and nonaugmented language interventions for toddlers with developmental delays and their parents. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2010; 53 (02) 350-364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Binger C, Maguire-Marshall M, Kent-Walsh J. Using aided AAC models, recasts, and contrastive targets to teach grammatical morphemes to children who use AAC. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2011; 54 (01) 160-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kent-Walsh J, Binger C, Hasham Z. Effects of parent instruction on the symbolic communication of children using augmentative and alternative communication during storybook reading. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2010; 19 (02) 97-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hunt P, Soto G, Maier J, Müller E, Goetz L. Collaborative teaming to support students with augmentative and alternative communication needs in general education classrooms. AAC Augment Altern Commun 2002; 18 (01) 20-35
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Romski M, Sevcik RA. Augmentative communication and early intervention: Myths and realities. Infants Young Child 2005; 18 (03) 174-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Brady NC, Bruce S, Goldman A. , et al. Communication services and supports for individuals with severe disabilities: guidance for assessment and intervention. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil 2016; 121 (02) 121-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of People with Severe Disabilities (NJC). Communication Bill of Right. Available at: http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/NJC-Communication-Bill-Rights.pdf . Accessed June 24, 2017
    PubMed
  • 29 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists with respect to reading and writing in children and adolescents [Position Statement]. Available at: www.asha.org/policy . Accessed July 18, 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Koppenhaver DA, Pierce PL, Steelman JD, Yoder DE. Contexts of early literacy intervention for children with developmental disabilities. Language Intervention 1995; 5: 241-274
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ruppar AL, Dymond SK, Gaffney JS. Teachers' perspectives on literacy instruction for students with severe disabilities who use augmentative and alternative communication. Res Pract Pers with Sev Disabil 2011; 36 (03) 100-111
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Justice LM, Mashburn A, Hamre B, Pianta R. Quality of language and literacy instruction in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils. Early Child Res Q 2008; 23 (01) 51-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kent-Walsh J, Binger C, Soto G, Zangari C. Addressing the communication demands of the classroom for beginning communicators and early language users. In: Practically Speaking: Language, Literacy and Academic Development for Students with AAC Needs ; 2009:143–172
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative. Chapter 7—Assistive Technology for Reading. Available at: http://www.wati.org/content/supports/free/pdf/Ch7-Reading.pdf . Accessed June 24, 2017
    PubMed
  • 35 Romski M, Sevcik R. Breaking the Speech Barrier: Language Development through Augmented Means. Paul H. Brookes; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Barker RM, Bridges MS, Saunders KJ. Validity of a non-speech dynamic assessment of phonemic awareness via the alphabetic principle. Augment Altern Commun 2014; 30 (01) 71-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Williams K. Phonological and Print Awareness Scale. Torrence, CA: Western Psychological Services; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Allor JH, Mathes PG, Roberts JK, Cheatham JP, Champlin TM. Comprehensive reading instruction for students with intellectual disabilities: findings from the first three years. Psychol Sch 2010; 47 (05) 445-466
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Rashotte C, Torgesen JK, Wagner RK. Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. San Antonio, TX: Pearson; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Good RH, Kaminski RA. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, 6th ed. Eugene, OR: 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Light JC, McNaughton D. ALL (Accessible Literacy Learning): Evidence-based Reading Instruction for Learners with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Down Syndrome and Other Disabilities. Pittsburgh, PA: Mayer-Johnson; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Browder DM, Gibbs SL, Ahlgrim-Delzell L, Courtade G, Lee A. Early literacy skills builder. Verona, WI: Attainment Company; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Browder DM, Ahlgrim-Delzell L, Wood L. Early reading skills builder. 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Foley BE, Pollatsek A. Phonological processing and reading abilities in adolescents and adults with severe congenital speech impairments. Augment Altern Commun 1999; 15: 156-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Perfetti C. Reading Ability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1985
    Google Scholar
  • 46 Bishop K, Rankin J, Mirenda P. Impact of graphic symbol use on reading acquisition. Augment Altern Commun 1994; 10 (02) 113-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Rankin J, Harwood K, Mirenda P. Influence of graphic symbol use on reading comprehension. Augment Altern Commun 1994; 10 (04) 269-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Van Balkom H, Verhoeven L. Literacy learning in users of AAC: a neurocognitive perspective. Augment Altern Commun 2010; 26 (03) 149-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar