Literacy by Design: A Universal Design for Learning Approach for Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities
Coyne, Peggy; Pisha, Bart; Dalton, Bridget; Zeph, Lucille A.; Smith, Nancy Cook (2012). Remedial and Special Education, v33 n3 p162-172. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ964990
-
examining16Students, gradesK-2
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Literacy by Design (LBD))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a cluster quasi-experimental design that provides evidence of effects on individuals by satisfying the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Johnson III (WJ-III) Word Attack (WA) subtest |
Literacy by Design (LBD) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
76.40 |
54.20 |
-- |
-- | ||
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% -
Rural, 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
Northeast
-
Race Black 6% Other or unknown 6% White 88% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 6% Not Hispanic or Latino 94% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in seven schools located in two New England states. Classrooms included a mix of inclusive classrooms in general education elementary schools and separate classrooms serving students with significant intellectual disabilities. The inclusive classrooms were located in rural elementary schools, while the classrooms serving students with significant disabilities were located in both suburban and urban school settings. Instruction occurred during the regular school day as part of students’ literacy instruction. Most classrooms had two or three participating students, while one intervention and one comparison classroom had one participating student.
Study sample
The study included 16 students in kindergarten through second grade with significant intellectual disabilities, with 8 students in the intervention group and 8 students in the comparison group. Students were selected based on the school's identification of students with significantly below average intellectual functioning and participation in reading instruction in the study classrooms. Nonverbal students were not included in the study. The students in the sample had a range of primary diagnoses, including developmental disabilities, autism, Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome. Some students also had physical disabilities.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention condition received Literacy by Design (LBD), a technology-based literacy program designed to support reading development for students with significant intellectual disabilities. The program combined electronic books with additional software to support phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. The LBD e-books were interactive, with the software reading the book aloud to the student with sentence-by-sentence highlighting, illustrations, prompts with reading comprehension strategies, and prompts asking the student to echo read, partner read, or independently read. The books were scaffolded to build students' comprehension over time. In addition to the LBD electronic books, students also used WiggleWorks for additional e-books and Island Adventure and Ocean Adventure to complete interactive games and activities focused on phonics and phonemic awareness. Instruction was delivered by classroom teachers or instructional assistants, often in one-on-one settings, particularly when students were using the LBD software. Teachers initially provided close guidance on how to use the program and gradually allowed students to work more independently as they became familiar with the tools. The intervention was implemented during the school year from October through May as part of a daily 90-minute literacy block. Within this block, students in the intervention group received approximately 20 to 30 minutes per day of instruction using the LBD software.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual literacy instruction provided by their classroom teachers. Teachers reported that their instruction addressed the core areas of reading, including phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension, using their existing curriculum and instructional practices. Like the intervention group, students participated in a 90-minute daily literacy block from October through May. Instruction was delivered daily during the school week and typically included a combination of individual and small-group instruction.
Support for implementation
Teachers in both the intervention and comparison groups participated in an initial full-day training on literacy best practices, including evidence-based strategies for teaching phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. Teachers in the intervention group received an additional full day of training on how to use the Literacy by Design software and related instructional tools. The study team conducted weekly observations of intervention classrooms and provided technical assistance and instructional support to the teachers, 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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).