This is a long blog post – if you would rather read it offline or have a copy of it, you can download it as a PDF below.
Literacy and Individuals with Significant Disabilities
Evidence is clear that children with intellectual and developmental disability can gain meaningful literacy skills with explicit instruction (Allor et al., 2014; Reichow et al., 2019). However, children and youth with intellectual and developmental disability have often been denied access to literacy instruction because of low expectations and continuing emphasis on prerequisites or “reading readiness” (Biggs et al, 2023; Copeland & Keefe, 2018; Ruppar, 2017).
Erickson and Koppenhaver (2019) provide us with an excellent framework for providing literacy instruction with students with significant disabilities. This document explains how this framework is based on the Simple View of Reading and how we can use them together to provide differentiated instruction for all the levels in our classrooms.
The Simple View of Reading
The Simple View of Reading (SVR) (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) was developed in an attempt to stop the “reading wars” – an ongoing debate about whether language or phonics was the more important skill when learning to read. Instead, Gough and Tunmer represented them as being equally important factors in learning to read with comprehension, calling the two areas decoding and language comprehension. They wanted us to understand that both these factors need to be present for a developing reader to learn to read with comprehension.
The SVR is consistent with conventional comprehensive literacy instruction (Erickson & Koppenhaver, 2019). The SVR model ‘is a way of organising the empirical findings about the components needed for skilled reading’ (Kilpatrick, 2015, p.77).
The SVR also reminds us that decoding (word recognition) skills are not the only component of learning to read with understanding. We need to be developing language comprehension as well: both are essential in supporting students to develop, or further develop, reading with comprehension.
Literacy Instruction and Literacy Learners with Significant Disabilities
These students are not included in the body of research often called The Science of Reading. We are still building information about how much of the science of reading research applies to the neurodiverse and allistic populations.
We do know that language comprehension is an area where many students with significant disabilities require additional and explicit instruction and extra supports.
Clendon et al (2021) report an “overall profile of relative strengths in print-related emergent literacy skills, particularly alphabet knowledge, and challenges in meaning-related skills (e.g., oral narrative comprehension)” in autistic preschoolers.
Fleury et al (2021) add to this as they state, “the majority of autistic school-age learners will struggle to understand what they read.”
Expanding on the Simple View of Reading
Scarborough’s (2001) Reading Rope aims to expand on the SVR. It supports teachers to understand the role of comprehensive literacy instruction in the teaching of early reading skills, through to the more complex skills required for skilled reading. It also provides us with guidance for emergent literacy instruction by helping us to understand the emergent (foundational) skills that each literacy learner needs.
Cunningham’s Model of Reading also aims to expand on the SVR. This is the model that Erickson and Koppenhaver (2019) reference in their text about Comprehensive Literacy Instruction for students with significant disabilities.
The Active View of Reading (Duke and Cartwright, 2021) is another model expanding on the SVR. It adds Active Self Regulation as an important factor in learning to read with comprehension – and adds an additional area involved in reading with comprehension that they label bridging processes.
Each of these models shows that reading is a complex process, involving both reading accurately and with understanding. By using SVR and the Reading Rope or the Active View of Reading, we can plan differentiated teaching approaches to suit the needs of different learners. This post will focus on the Simple View of Reading as a starting point for planning instruction.
The Simple View of Reading
The Simple View of Reading (SVR) was designed as a simple representation of what a beginning reader needs to master. Gough and Tunmer (1986) originally represented it as an equation.
Decoding (Word Recognition)
The element that Gough and Tunmer refer to as decoding is also called word recognition in some models. Initially, students need to learn letter-sound correspondences to decode words. Phonological awareness and phonics are both part of this skill of decoding. However, once a word has been decoded a number of times, a reader moves onto recognising it automatically or “by sight”, and it moves to being word identification. Plus, there are a group of words which cannot be completely decoded, and the focus is on learning these by sight from the beginning. These are sometimes called irregular words e.g. the, was.
Language Comprehension
Language comprehension means the ability to understand spoken language and refers to skills such as oral language and vocabulary.
One of the statements often made by reading scientists is that if a child is exposed to a rich spoken-language environment, then the child will learn to understand and produce spoken language. As Pinker (2009) puts it, “there is almost no way to prevent it from happening, short of raising a child in a barrel” (p. 29).
As children develop, their understanding and production of spoken language also continues to develop, so that by the time children learn to read they have a complex language system. This system keeps developing during their primary school years – and it is crucial for reading comprehension once children can read for themselves. “Oral language sets a vital foundation for reading comprehension and its development” (Castles et al, 2018).
This document is specifically about individuals with significant disabilities. These are students who have often had difficulties developing spoken language even though they have been in a rich spoken language environment. For some of these students their difficulties center around production of speech, for others they have difficulty both understanding and producing speech. Both difficulties with production and comprehension of speech have an impact on reading development and on reading comprehension. We need to be very aware of the impact of these in our literacy instruction.
Many of the students who are the focus of this document are going to need additional support to develop language comprehension. For many this will include a comprehensive Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) system such as a PODD or a core vocabulary system, along with aided language stimulation. For all of them this will include work on different areas of language to support their development of comprehension.
Reading Comprehension
Gough and Tunmer (1986) represented the SVR as an equation because they wanted us to understand that reading comprehension is the product of both decoding and language comprehension. If one aspect is absent then reading comprehension is absent, just as zero multiplied by anything is zero.
The Simple View of Reading shows us that both decoding and language comprehension must be considered when assessing a student’s ability to comprehend written text. If only one aspect is well-developed—for example, a student who can decode words accurately, but who doesn’t understand what they read—then reading comprehension is affected. And it reminds us that the purpose of reading is always to read with comprehension.
The Simple View of Reading Quadrants
The Simple View of Reading can be plotted on a quadrant chart (Hoover & Tunmer, 2020), helping us to understand that there are four groups of literacy learners. These students can then be further separated into students who are ready for conventional instruction, and students who need to further develop emergent (foundational) literacy skills.
Using the SVR to identify Literacy Instruction Needs
The placement of a student in the SVR quadrants helps to inform the design of each student’s reading program, and to determine appropriate literacy teaching.
The first question to ask about a literacy learner is: ‘Can the student read words accurately?’
If the answer to the first question is ‘no’, then we understand that word recognition, or the foundational skills in word recognition, are an underlying area of need. We can then move on to the second question for further information.
If the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, then we understand that language comprehension is an underlying area of need. And once again we move onto the second question for further information.
The second question is ‘If I read this passage to this student, would they understand it?’ (Kilpatrick, 2015) – and our response to this question also depends on the response to the first question! Let’s go into this in more detail below.
(And the answer also depends on the difficulty level of the passage, but let’s start by thinking about a passage at Foundation level).
Students in Quadrant 1
These students are good readers, who have both good word identification skills and good language comprehension. They continue to need comprehensive literacy instruction at their level. They need to be engaging in activities involving the extended alphabetic code and have regular self-selected reading. They will also benefit from comprehension instruction and (of course) daily opportunities to write. We need further assessment information to determine the level of their instruction.
Students in Quadrants 2, 3 and 4
These students can read words, and often sentences and passages, but may not understand them, either when they read them or when we read them. Their main underlying difficulty is language comprehension. We need comprehensive assessment to determine their level of instruction – but can use the four questions above to guide some of our decision making.
Students in Quadrant 2
These students can read words, and often sentences and passages, but may not understand them, either when they read them or when we read them. Their main underlying difficulty is language comprehension. We need comprehensive assessment to determine their level of instruction – but can use the four questions above to guide some of our decision making.
If a student is a ‘yes’ to the four questions above then we want to develop their language comprehension by engaging them in a range of rich children’s literature, and in vocabulary building experiences to improve their reading comprehension. One of the strategies we can use to do this is to focus on shared reading, as it is an evidence-based activity for building comprehension (Fleury et al, 2021).
For many students with communication support needs, language comprehension intervention will include supporting their use of a comprehensive Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) system.
If a student is a ‘no’ to any of the four questions above, then they will need emergent (foundational) literacy experiences to support them to develop reading comprehension. Shared reading will continue to be part of our intervention, although we may be focusing on building engagement and interactions around texts. These students may also benefit from other emergent literacy experiences, such as emergent writing. They may need to learn the functions of print – that print has meaning, and that text is a code for speech. Participating in shared reading and emergent writing (including individual writing, morning message and predictable chart writing) can help build the understanding of these functions of print which are essential for a student to progress to reading with comprehension.
Additionally, we will need to ensure that they have a robust AAC system to support their language development, and we will need to provide aided language stimulation, which has been shown to build receptive language, including for students with severe intellectual disability (Laher & Dada, 2023).
Extra notes about students in Quadrant 2
These students need to learn to read with comprehension. They don’t usually struggle with decoding – so they need texts where we can have a discussion and build comprehension. For this reason, we would use standard children’s picture books or levelled readers rather than decodable readers.
Synthetic phonics may not be appropriate with some students in this group, if they can already read and write all the words in a typical synthetic phonics program. If this is the case, you might consider implementing analytic phonics instead.
Students in Quadrant 4
These students are not able to read words, but can understand words, sentences and passages when others read to them.
Once again, we need comprehensive assessment to determine where their underlying weakness is. But if the student is a ‘yes’ to the four questions above then it is likely that weak decoding/word recognition skills are causing their reading difficulties. At this point, we need to review our phonics and sight word instruction and adjust the program.
However, if the answer to any of the questions above is ‘no’, then the struggling reader may need work on the foundational (emergent) literacy skills that every student needs to bring to conventional literacy instruction. Since the student can undertsand the passage when someone else reads it, then the foundational skill most likely to need intervention is working with letters and sounds.
Students in Quadrant 3
These students struggle to read words and also do not understand them when we read them. They are having difficulty with both decoding and with language comprehension.
Once again, we need comprehensive assessment to determine what level our teaching needs to be at. But if the student is a ‘yes’ to the four questions above then we will need to review both phonics and comprehension instruction. Weak decoding/word recognition skills are contributing to their reading difficulties, so we need to review our phonics and sight word instruction and adjust the program. However, we also need to develop their language comprehension by engaging them in a range of rich children’s literature, and in vocabulary building experiences to improve their reading comprehension. Again, shared reading is a strategy that we would use.
If a student is a ‘no’ to any of the four questions above, then they will need emergent (foundational) literacy intervention.
Emergent (Foundational) Literacy Skills
There are two main aims when working on emergent literacy skills.
- To promote children’s positive regard for literacy and their understanding of the functional, intentional use of literacy.
- To increase children’s skills in discrete areas that are critically linked to later reading success.
Working with Letters and Sounds – Alphabet knowledge and Phonemic Awareness
Byrne and colleagues (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989, 1990; Byrne, 1992) conducted a series of studies to investigate the role of alphabet knowledge in learning that letters represent sounds (alphabetic principle). Children with no alphabet knowledge were unable to progress in their understanding of this skill. Only when children knew the letters involved in the tasks, plus were able to segment phonemes explicitly in spoken words, were they able to generalise the skills they had been taught in the study. These findings are supported by a large number of studies, establishing that “foundational skills such as phonemic awareness and letter knowledge are key precursors” to cracking the alphabet code (Castles et al, 2018).
Shared Reading and Self-Selected Reading
Shared reading has been shown to support the development of many skills. It helps to develop joint attention on objects and pictures during interactions (Rogoff, Malkin & Gilbride, 1984). It develops better oral language skills (DeBaryshe, 1993; Karras & Braungart-Rieker, 2005; Raikes et al, 2006) and, of course, develops early literacy skills (Bus, 2003).
The research with students with disabilities into shared reading is also very positive. “A review of Shared Interactive Book Reading studies indicates this as a viable intervention to positively impact the language skills of young children with developmental disabilities and/or delays.” Towson et al (2021)
For Autistic literacy learners, shared reading is also important. However, the research, and our own experience, tells us that they may have less engagement with social interaction based literacy activities, such as shared book reading. (Bean et al, 2020, Westerveld et al, 2016, Lanter et al, 2012). The good news, though, is that by providing quality adult led social-literacy activities we can improve their engagement (Fluery et al, 2014; Fluery and Schwartz, 2017). And once we improve that engagement we can support skill development via shared reading – and in the long term this will improve reading comprehension.
Writing
Emergent writing is also important for the development of foundational skills for reading. The purpose of this document is to talk about reading – but this is a reminder that reading and writing are intertwined and each impacts on the development of the other.
References
Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Cheatham, J. P., & Otaiba, S. A. (2014). Is scientifically based reading instruction effective for students with below-average IQs?. Exceptional children, 80(3), 287-306.
Bean, A. F., Perez, B. I., Dynia, J. M., Kaderavek, J. N., & Justice, L. M. (2020). Book-Reading Engagement in Children with Autism and Language Impairment: Associations with Emergent-Literacy Skills. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 50(3), 1018–1030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04306-4
Biggs, E. E., Arserio, A. P., Robison, S. E. & Ross, M. E. (2023). Home Literacy Environment and Interventions for Children With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Scoping Review. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 66(6), 2118-2140. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_JSLHR-22-00334
Bus, A. G. (2003). Social-emotional requisites for learning to read. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Shahl & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 3-15). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Byrne, B. (1992). Studies in the acquisition procedure for reading: Rationale, hypotheses, and data. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 1–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1989). Phonemic awareness and letter knowledge in the child’s acquisition of the alphabetic principle. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 313–321. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.313
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1990). Acquiring the alphabetic principle: A case for teaching recognition of phoneme identity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 805–812. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.805
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19, 5–51. doi:10.1177/1529100618772271
Clendon, S., Paynter, J., Walker, S., Bowen, R., & Westerveld, M. F. (2021). Emergent literacy assessment in children with autism spectrum disorder who have limited verbal communication skills: A tutorial. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 52(1), 165-180. https://doi.org/doi:10.1044/2020_LSHSS-20-00030
Copeland, S.R. & Keefe, E.B. (2018). Effective Literacy Instruction for Learners with Complex Support Needs (2nd ed). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
DeBaryshe, B. D. (1993). Joint picture-book reading correlates of early oral language skill. Journal of Child Language, 20(2), 455–461. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900008370
Department for Education and Child Development (DECD). (2016). The ‘Big 6’ components of reading, Best Advice, Government of South Australia.
Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the Simple View of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25-S44.
Erickson, K., & Koppenhaver, D. (2019). Comprehensive literacy for all: Teaching students with significant disabilities to read and write. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Fleury, V. P., Whalon K., Gilmore, C., Wang, X. & Marks, R. (2021). Building Comprehension Skills of Young Children With Autism One Storybook at a Time. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 52(1), 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_LSHSS-20-00026
Fleury, V. P., & Schwartz, I. S. (2017). A modified dialogic reading intervention for preschool children with autism spectrum disorder. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 37(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121416637597
Gough, P.B. & Tunmer, W.E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability, Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.
Hoover, W.A. & Gough,P.B. (1990) The simple view of reading, Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.
Hoover, W.A. & Tunmer, W.E. (2020) The Cognitive Foundations of Reading and Its Acquisition: A Framework with Applications Connecting Teaching and Learning. Springer.
Karrass, J., & Braungart-Rieker, J. M. (2005). Effects of shared parent-infant book reading on early language acquisition. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2004.12.003
Kilpatrick, D.A.(2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties, New York: Wiley
Pinker, S. (2009). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Raikes, H., Pan, B. A., Luze, G., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Brooks-Gunn, J., Constantine, J., Tarullo, L. B., Raikes, H. A., & Rodriguez, E. T. (2006). Mother-child bookreading in low-income families: correlates and outcomes during the first three years of life. Child development, 77(4), 924–953. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00911.x
Reichow, B., Lemons, C.J., Maggin, D.M., Hill, D.R. (2019). Beginning reading interventions for children and adolescents with intellectual disability. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 12 (12), CD011359. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011359.pub2
Laher, Z., & Dada, S. (2023). The effect of aided language stimulation on the acquisition of receptive vocabulary in children with complex communication needs and severe intellectual disability: a comparison of two dosages. Augmentative and alternative communication, 39(2), 96–109.
Lanter, E., Watson, L. R., Erickson, K. A., & Freeman, D. (2012). Emergent Literacy in Children With Autism: An Exploration of Developmental and Contextual Dynamic Processes. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43(3), 308-324. https://doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2012/10-0083)
Rogoff, B., Malkin, C., & Gilbride, K. (1984). Interaction with babies as guidance in development. New Directions for Child Development, 23, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219842305
Rogoff, B., Malkin, C., & Gilbride, K. (1984). Interaction with babies as guidance in development. New Directions for Child Development, 23, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219842305
Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice.In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy. New York: Guilford Press.
Towson J. A., Akemoglu, Y., Watkins, L., & Zeng S. (2021). Shared Interactive Book Reading Interventions for Young Children With Disabilities: A Systematic Review, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 30(6), 2700-2715. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJSLP-20-00401
Westerveld, M. F., Trembath, D., Shellshear, L., & Paynter, J. (2016). A systematic review of the literature on emergent literacy skills of preschool children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. The Journal of Special Education, 50(1), 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466915613593
