Implementing Comprehensive Literacy Instruction for Students with Severe Disabilities in General Education Classrooms
Hunt, Pam; Kozleski, Elizabeth; Lee, Jaehoon; Mortier, Kathleen; Fleming, Danielle; Hicks, Tyler; Balasubramanian, Lakshmi; Leu, Grace; Bross, Leslie Ann; Munandar, Vidya; Dunlap, Kristin; Stepaniuk, Inna; Aramburo, Corrine; Oh, Youngha (2020). Exceptional Children, v86 n3 p330-347. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1247769
-
examining74Students, gradesK-4
IES Performance Measure
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2023
- IES Performance Measure (findings for Early Literacy Skills Builder (ELSB))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Nonverbal Literacy Assessment: Conventions of Reading subtest |
Early Literacy Skills Builder (ELSB) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.77 |
0.65 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Nonverbal Literacy Assessment: Conventions of Reading subtest |
Early Literacy Skills Builder (ELSB) vs. Business as usual |
2 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.58 |
0.48 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Nonverbal Literacy Assessment: Conventions of Reading subtest |
Early Literacy Skills Builder (ELSB) vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.71 |
0.62 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Nonverbal Literacy Assessment: Conventions of Reading subtest |
Early Literacy Skills Builder (ELSB) vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.63 |
0.56 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 31%
Male: 69% -
Suburban, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Midwest, West
Study Details
Setting
The study takes place in 16 elementary schools within 11 school districts; 9 of the elementary schools were in one Pacific Coast state while the remaining 7 elementary schools were located in two Midwestern states. Of the 9 schools in the Pacific Coast state, six of the schools were in urban settings and three were in suburban settings. All of the Midwestern elementary schools were urban schools. The study included students in kindergarten through 4th grade.
Study sample
All 80 participating students were in grades K-4 with 24 percent in kindergarten, 24 percent in grade 1, 30 percent in grade 2, 13 percent in grade 3, and 10 percent in grade 4. Also, 69 percent of the students were male; 56 percent were classified as having an intellectual disability and 44 percent with autism; and 70 percent were classified as verbal and the other 30 percent as nonverbal.
Intervention Group
Students in the Early Literacy Skills Builder intervention condition received instruction in a small group setting over the course of the 9-month school year. These lessons were conducted for 30-40 minutes during the literacy block in general education classrooms throughout the school year. Early Literacy Skills Builder includes two components: Building with Sounds and Symbols and Building with Stories. Building with Sounds and Symbols contains seven levels with five lessons each. These lessons focus on teaching alphabetics and vocabulary. Building with Stories is shared story-reading time that includes instructing students to interact with books and developing listening comprehension and vocabulary skills. Two focal students and two general education classmates (called “reading buddies”) typically participated in the lessons. The participating paraprofessionals implemented components of the literacy instruction under the supervision of the special education teachers. No other literacy instruction was provided at other times during the day.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual instruction planned by special education teachers to address the literacy goals in the students’ individualized education programs (IEPs) during the 9-month study year. The instruction included published curricula as well as teacher-made materials and lesson plans. These lessons were conducted for 30-40 minutes during the literacy block in general education classrooms throughout the school year. The majority of lessons were delivered in small groups, but a few classrooms implemented the comparison condition through whole class instruction and other classrooms used a combination of whole class and small group instruction.
Support for implementation
Members of the study team were certified in Early Literacy Skills Builder implementation by members of the research team who developed and evaluated the curriculum (from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte). The special education teachers who delivered the intervention participated in a two-day ELSB training conducted by the research team members during the summer prior to implementation. This training also included a refresher session just before the beginning of the school year. To support implementation during the school year, site coordinators observed literacy lessons weekly and provided corrective feedback as needed.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).