LITERACY INSTRUCTION ISSUES AND CONCERNS 1 .docx

LITERACY INSTRUCTION ISSUES AND CONCERNS 1
Applying the Five Pillars to Literacy Instruction
With Students Who Have Moderate to Severe Disabilities:
Issues and Concerns
Lewis B. Jackson
University of Northern Colorado
Diane L. Ryndak and
Ann-Marie Orlando
University of Florida
Kara Halley
Metro State College of Denver
Karen McCaleb
Texas A&M University Corpus Christi

Abstract
The findings and recommendation of the National Reading
Panel (National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, 2000) have influenced how
literacy skills are conceptualized
and taught in schools. Although the report’s findings and
recommendation were directed at
students without disabilities, they have the potential to impact
instruction and instructional
research with students who have moderate to severe disabilities.
To explore this, we used the
National Reading Panel’s five pillars framework (i.e., phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, and reading comprehension) to raise issues and
concerns about literacy instruction
research and practices with students who have moderate to
severe disabilities. In our discussion,

we assume the point of view of teachers who wish to improve
their practices by delving into the
literacy research base, opening with a discussion of how
scientific evidence can serve as a guide
for improving literacy instruction. This is followed by a
discussion of specific issues and
concerns related to each of the five pillars, illustrated by
research studies in which the
participants have moderate to severe disabilities. We conclude
by summarizing our concerns; by
exploring additional concerns that go across the five pillars; and
by posing arguments that
present questions regarding the applicability of the National
Reading Panel’s (2000) findings for
students with moderate to severe disabilities. Lastly, the paper
considers the potential role of
literacy research and practice as contributing factors in an
unreconciled dichotomy between a
body of research demonstrating the power of evidence-based
instruction with these students, and
another body of research showing the continued denial of
literacy opportunities to them in
schools.
Keywords: Literacy; Reading; National Reading Panel;

moderate to severe disabilities;
evidence-based instruction
Applying the Five Pillars to Literacy Instruction
With Students Who Have Moderate to Severe Disabilities:
Issues and Concerns
In the broadest sense, literacy involves understanding, using,
and producing print for a
variety of purposes, where print may include text, symbols,
and/or images. While the ability to
engage in literacy activities is critical for participation in a
print-driven society, Lonigan and
Shanahan (2010) indicated that pinpointing what actually
constitutes “literacy” is not a
straightforward process. Part of the dilemma lies with
determining what skills best define,
characterize, and promote literacy competence, an issue with
practical implications for teachers.
To be effective, teachers must select for instruction those
literacy skills that are most essential for
their students to complete literacy tasks in today’s increasingly

complex and demanding society.
This issue also has implications for research designed to
enhance our understanding, and
improve our delivery, of literacy interventions. Teachers are
being asked to use practices based
on scientific evidence, requiring that they survey and critically
evaluate the extant research on
literacy interventions to identify effective instructional
practices for realizing particular literacy
outcomes. One could say that a litmus test for examining the
research on literacy interventions is
whether a study or review of studies discloses sufficient
information regarding the pedagogies
employed and the outcomes realized, such that teachers can use
the information to inform their
practices. Teachers, however, also must consider external
validity, or the generalizability of
research results (Campbell & Stanley, 1963); that is, whether a
particular study, a group of
studies, or a review of studies can contribute meaningfully to
their decisions about practice
because there are parallels between the participants, contexts,
and outcomes reported in the
research and those within their own instructional situations. As

noted by Campbell and Stanley,
“in the area of teaching, the doubts frequently expressed as to
the applicability in actual practice
of the results of highly artificial experiments are judgments
about external validity” (p. 17).
While the process of choosing essential literacy outcomes and
delineating effective
pedagogies for students with moderate to severe disabilities
might seem to be straightforward, it
is in fact fraught with difficulties. In the broader field of
literacy, this is evident in the protracted
“reading wars” that have occurred regarding what constitutes
the best approaches to reading
instruction (e.g., Flippo, 1999). “Reading wars” refers to
repeated shifts across the years in what
defines the essential outcomes and most effective instructional
methods in reading and writing
instruction, shifting between meaning- and code-based
approaches. To illustrate, when reviewing
this history Cassidy, Valadez, and Garrett (2010) described how
the whole language movement

(i.e., a meaning-based approach) emerged in the 1980s largely
in reaction to the phonics-based
movement (i.e., a code-based approach) of the previous era.
Partially as an attempt to end the debates fueled by the whole
language versus phonics
dichotomy, in 1997 the U.S. Congress authorized the formation
of a panel of experts to examine
the empirical research on literacy instruction with school-aged
readers who do not have
disabilities, and to make recommendations about effective
practices in terms of the scientific
evidence (Cassidy et al., 2010). The result was the formation of
the National Reading Panel,
which provided recommendations grouped into what are now
called the “five pillars” of reading
instruction: (1) phonemic awareness, (2) phonics, (3) fluency,
(4) vocabulary, and (5) text
comprehension (National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, 2000; henceforth
referred to as NRP, 2000). Although intended to attenuate the
pendulum swings between
meaning- and code-based approaches, the years following the
report’s publication were marked

by a shift to code-based thinking, possibly the result of the
report’s heavy emphasis on code-
based approaches (Cassidy et al.). Whether or not the panel
intended for the five pillars to
delineate “the most important areas for reading instruction”
(Cassidy et al., p. 644), these pillars
now influence how reading instruction is conceptualized and
implemented in many schools.
Although impacted by the debates between meaning- and code-
based approaches to
literacy instruction, teachers of students with moderate to
severe disabilities have faced an
additional dichotomy in their efforts to delineate evidence-
based approaches to, and maximize
student outcomes from, literacy instruction. This dichotomy is
between a body of evidence
showing that certain forms of instruction are effective when
teaching specific types of reading
skills to students with moderate to severe disabilities (Browder,
Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-
Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006; Whalon, Otaiba, & Delano, 2009),

and another body of evidence
suggesting that literacy opportunities are systematically denied
to these students (Kliewer &
Biklen, 2001; Ryndak, Morrison, & Sommerstein, 1999;
Zascavage & Keefe, 2004). These latter
studies describe attitudes of school personnel that presume
inherent limitations in these students’
abilities to become literate, as well as the failure of general and
special education programs to
provide them access to literacy activities and communities
evident throughout schools.
This dichotomy between evidence of success at literacy tasks
when provided instruction
and restricted literacy opportunities likely has complex roots,
involving both the policies and
procedures of educational systems and the attitudes and beliefs
of school personnel. It also is
possible, however, that part of the problem lies with the content
taught and the pedagogies used
when literacy skills are taught to students with moderate to
severe disabilities. Perhaps what is
taught and how it is taught to these students, when contrasted
with what is taught and how it is
taught to typical students in general education, is sufficiently

discrepant to discourage viewing
these efforts and their outcomes as relevant indices of potential
for success in the larger literacy
activities and communities of schools.
Considering that teachers are being asked to base instructional
decisions on research
(Chhabra & McCardle, 2004; Reyna, 2004), and in light of the
foregoing issues, it might be
productive to examine literacy instruction research conducted
with students who have moderate
to severe disabilities, and consider what this research promotes
as useful when selecting literacy
outcomes and instructional practices for these students.
Moreover, given that schools must
provide all students with access to, and ensure their progress in,
the general curriculum
(Copeland & Cosbey, 2009; McLaughlin, 2010), it might be
productive to consider whether this
research offers teachers guidance on using literacy instruction
to promote these broader ends.

Although focused on the learning of typical school-aged
students, the five pillars
delineated by the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) might
offer a useful framework for
exploring the foregoing issues. Both Downing (2005) and
Copeland and Keefe (2007) noted that
definitions of literacy typically employed when defining and
describing instruction with students
who have moderate to severe disabilities often emphasize the
teaching of reading and writing
skills related to the literal interpretation of text, and this
perspective seems consistent with the
NRP (2000) report. In addition, there seems to be a substantial
body of quantitative research with
students who have moderate to severe disabilities that employs
direct instructional processes that
are intended to affect discrete literacy skills, an approach to
instruction that would appear to be
consistent with the NRP’s emphasis on direct and explicit
instruction. Finally, other
examinations of the reading instruction literature have
employed this framework to usefully
organize relevant research (e.g., Browder et al., 2006).
Accordingly, in this paper, we will use the NRP’s five pillars to

frame our exploration of
issues and concerns about literacy instruction research for
students with moderate to severe
disabilities. To provide a practical focus, we will also do this
through the lens of teachers who
might be examining the literature in search of ways to
incorporate in their instruction literacy
practices that are supported by research with students who have
moderate to severe disabilities.
The first part of this paper opens with a discussion on the nature
and relevance of scientific
evidence when used to guide reading instruction, followed by
sub-sections for each of the five
pillars. Each sub-section provides a discussion of specific
issues and concerns related to that
pillar, coupled with illustrations drawn from the extant research
on literacy instruction. The
second and final part of this paper summarizes concerns with
the research associated with each
of the five pillars; explores issues and concerns that go across
the pillars; poses questions about

the applicability of the National Reading Panel’s (2000)
findings for literacy instruction for
students with moderate to severe disabilities; and re-considers
the dichotomy described above
between evidence of success at literacy tasks and restricted
literacy opportunities. In this section,
we also acknowledge limitations associated with the critical
analysis offered in this paper.
Scientific Evidence, and Issues and Concerns Related to the
Five Pillars
Chhabra and McCardle (2004) asserted that the NRP (2000)
report established high
standards for evaluating scientific research when planning and
providing reading instruction.
These authors asserted that teachers should access research
reports and peer-reviewed journals
“to read the information first hand, to decide for themselves
how good the evidence is” (p. 9).
What constitutes scientific evidence lies at the core of any
discussion about how to use
research to make instructional decisions. In her discussion of
reading research and the nature of
evidence, Reyna (2004) argued that one way to define scientific
evidence is to distinguish it from

alternative forms of “evidence” that might be used in
instructional decision-making. She noted
that classroom instruction, when not based on scientific
evidence, can be based on appeals to
tradition, philosophy, intuition, superstition, and anecdote, and
she suggested that such appeals
have been “the only options available” to many teachers of
reading. Reyna further argued that
scientific evidence requires knowing about and using processing
models of learning, which take
into account factors such as attention, motivation, and the
storage and retrieval of information.
She asserted that all who are involved in instructional decision-
making need to be familiar with
basic processes of learning, and by extension with what the
research says about how to engage
those processes most effectively to teach reading and other
literacy skills.
We suggest that, while the foregoing views on how to
characterize scientific evidence are

important, they do not fully go to the heart of the nature of
“scientific evidence” when applied to
instructional decision-making, and that teachers must consider
at least three other factors when
evaluating instructional research. The first and most obvious
factor we suggest, and the one most
consistent with Reyna’s (2004) arguments, is whether a strategy
or instructional approach has
been demonstrated to have, or not have, an effect; for example,
whether skill acquisition
occurred, whether the occurrence of a performance change can
be linked to the described
intervention and not to other reported or non-reported events,
and whether acquisition occurred
more rapidly or efficiently using one method over another. The
second factor that we suggest
teachers must consider is the robustness of the findings; that is,
does a study provide evidence
that skills acquired by the students are retained across time or
are shown to generalize into
relevant and purposeful activities and settings outside of the
immediate instructional situation.
Third and finally, we suggest that teachers must consider the
utility of a study’s findings; that is,

does a study address or show how the skills that were acquired
by students promote or result in
the formation of other more advanced skills, provide access to
curriculum or other materials, or
contribute to successful functioning within a broader range of
literacy activities.
Addressing these three issues within a published report of
research could be difficult, and
might require researchers of literacy instruction to go beyond
the intended scopes and purposes
of their studies. It also could be argued that researchers need
not elaborate on how the discrete
skills learned by students during their intervention studies are
connected with other skills or
contribute to advanced activity participation, if such
relationships seem to have been established
elsewhere in the extant research. Nevertheless, we propose that
asking teachers to use scientific
evidence in planning instruction requires researchers to apply a
stringent standard of what
constitutes evidence of meaningful change. We propose that

such a standard extends the analysis
process associated with a study’s results from simply showing
how a discrete skill set was
acquired and toward showing whether a broader range of
variables associated with the literacy
lives of the students have been impacted. This is not unlike
asking researchers addressing
literacy practices in their studies to also address the social
validity of their findings (Wolf, 1978).
The immediate implications of our expanded view of the nature
of scientific evidence is
that it will color what we propose are the important issues and
concerns related to the five pillars
of reading delineated by the NRP (2000). As we discuss each
pillar, we will share our
perceptions of what a teacher needs to see in a study, or in a
body of studies, to gain confidence
in the evidence. We believe that by doing so, the concept of
scientific evidence can be fleshed
out to improve the utility of future research for teachers.
Phonemic Awareness
Phonemes are the smallest units of sound that “influence the
meaning of words” (Gillon,

2004, p. 7); hence, phonemic awareness is “the awareness that
the speech stream consists of a
sequence of sounds” (Yopp & Yopp, 2000, p. 130). Instruction
in phonemic awareness involves
assisting students to focus on and manipulate sounds in orally-
presented syllables and words
(NRP, 2000), and measurement of phonemic awareness involves
tasks that use spoken language
(Gillon). In its findings, the NRP reported that explicit training
in phonemic awareness resulted
in improvements in “phonemic awareness, reading, and
spelling,” and that “teaching children to
manipulate phonemes” was highly effective across a variety of
students (p. 7).
In their meta-analysis of reading intervention research with
students who have moderate
to severe disabilities published between 1975 and 2003,
Browder et al. (2006) reported only 5
studies that included phonemic awareness instruction, none of
which appear to have been
candidates for inclusion in their effect size analysis. However,

we think that teachers who comb
the research literature looking for studies that address the
effects of instruction on phonemic
awareness for students who have moderate to severe disabilities
will find a number of studies
suggesting that explicit, one-to-one instruction can lead to the
acquisition of targeted sound
recognition and production skills when taught in isolated or
special education settings
(Hoogeveen & Smeets,1988; Hoogeveen, Birkhoff, Smeets,
Lancioni, & Boelens, 1989).
We have, however, four concerns about the use of this research
to guide teachers’
decision-making for literacy instruction. First, we wonder how
the available research in this area
can inform practice when some number of these studies mix
phonemic awareness instruction
with instruction in other skills, such as skills associated with
printed material, phonics, and
vocabulary (Bracey, Maggs, & Morath, 1975; Browder,
Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade, Gibbs, &
Flowers, 2008; Conners, Rosenquist, Sligh, Atwell, & Kiser,
2006; Goetz et al., 2008).
Certainly, given the successes of these studies, it seems

reasonable to propose that instruction in
phonemic awareness skills should be routinely integrated with
instruction in other reading skills
(see also Gillon, 2004), and that instruction in phonemic
awareness can be supported by using
pictures and real words (see also Allor, Mathes, Champlin, &
Cheatham, 2009). Nevertheless,
because the phonemic awareness instruction is confounded with
instruction in other skills in
these studies, the reported changes in neither phonemic
awareness nor other skills can be linked
unequivocally to the phonemic awareness component of the
instruction. If the broader literacy
instruction research base in moderate to severe disabilities also
reflects this pattern, then the
contribution of phonemic awareness instruction toward literacy
skill building is unclear.
Second, we question whether phonemic awareness skills taught
to students with moderate
to severe disabilities in relative isolation can have the desired
cumulative effects sought by

teachers, in which skills taught early in the process facilitate
the acquisition of skills taught
subsequently. Hoogeveen and Smeets (1988), for instance,
implemented a reading program with
seven young Dutch students, beginning with word blending
tasks, followed by syllable and
phoneme blending in isolation, and ending with instruction in
reading one-syllable words. Some
“spill-over effects” were reported, in which students produced
correct responses in later steps of
the reading program without direct training; however, the
authors concluded that “the training
effects were considerably stronger than the spillover effects” (p.
51). That is, the authors
concluded that the progress that occurred as students advanced
step-by-step through the reading
program was much more likely to be a function of direct
instruction on each step, rather than the
generalization of skills from previous steps.
Third, we note that numerous trials often seem to be required to
achieve acquisition of
these very basic sound recognition skills, and we wonder about
the causal factors underlying this

pattern. It seems to us that there might be a belief that
instruction is necessarily intense and
prolonged because of the presence of the students’ disabilities.
However, there also is the
possibility that the amount of time for instruction and the
number of trials reported are intense
and prolonged not because of the student’s disability, but
because: (a) the student perceives the
instruction or content as tedious, uninteresting, or unrelated to
their personal interests; or (b)
there is an absence of other, more varied experiences with
literacy that could lend meaning and
purpose to the phonemic awareness skill acquisition (e.g.,
storybook reading).
Fourth and finally, if an ultimate goal of literacy instruction is
for the student to access
and comprehend content (Snow, 2002), then teachers must think
strategically about how they
portion their limited instructional time and resources in relation
to different literacy skill sets. We
remain uncertain as to how focused instruction in phonemic

awareness contributes in the long
run to the emergence of meaning-based skills (e.g., reading
comprehension), which can more
directly facilitate content access. None of the studies referred to
above adequately examined this
issue, and the NRP’s finding that explicit instruction in
phonemic awareness can benefit other
reading skills can be confirmed only with respect to instruction
for students with moderate to
severe disabilities through additional research. We contend that
there is a need for longitudinal
research with students who have moderate to severe disabilities
in various contexts in which a
broad range of phonemic awareness experiences (e.g., direct
instruction, embedded instruction,
incidental learning opportunities) are correlated with learning
other literacy skills, especially
learning to comprehend vocabulary and text. Moreover, we see
a need for this research to
conceptualize theoretical mechanisms that can: (a) account not
only for phonemic awareness
skill acquisition, but also for both failed and successful skill
retention and generalization; and (b)
explain how the development of other literacy skills is impeded

or facilitated, given either a
deficient or well-developed skill base in phonemic awareness.
Phonics
Phonics is a “way of teaching reading and spelling that stresses
symbol-sound
relationships” (Yopp & Yopp, 2000, p. 131). The NRP (2000)
emphasized phonics instruction as
an important vehicle for acquiring the ability to identify and use
printed letter-sound
relationships both in isolation and in a variety of print contexts.
An essential reading skill that is
facilitated by phonics instruction is decoding – the process of
sounding out words by using the
regularities associated with letters and groups of letters to
facilitate recognition of familiar words
and to assist in identifying unknown words (Gough & Tunmer,
1986). While noting that phonics
instruction is insufficient when used alone, the NRP strongly
recommended systematic explicit
phonics instruction for realizing the “foundational skills” of

reading in students (p. 9). The NRP
asserted that when systematic phonics instruction is employed,
“significant benefits” are accrued
in reading and spelling, and benefits are noted in reading
comprehension, for students of all ages
and for students who are struggling readers (pp. 9-10).
There is a dearth of studies examining instruction for students
with moderate to severe
disabilities in phonological structure and decoding processes
associated with printed words (see
Joseph & Seery, 2004); nevertheless, there are studies
suggesting that systematic phonics
instruction might hold promise for teaching these and related
skills. For example, Bracey et al.
(1975) used the “task-analyzed, structured” materials of the
Direct Instructional System for
Teaching and Remediation (DISTAR) Reading Level 1 program,
along with token reinforcement,
to teach six children, aged 7 to14 years, skills for producing and
blending sounds in response to
written letters and words. Fallon, Light, McNaughton, Drager,
and Hammer (2004) combined
systematic instruction in the phonological structures of words
with word recognition tasks to

promote reading specific single words, reading other words with
the same letters, and reading
both types of words in text for five students ranging in age from
5 to14 years. A unique feature
of their study was that the participants were nonverbal, thus
their study required substituting
picture-word association responses for spoken responses across
all tasks. All five students
reached criteria on single-word reading; three responded
correctly to some novel words
composed of the same letters; and four responded correctly to
some targeted and untaught words
presented in text. In a final illustration, Bradford, Shippen,
Alberto, Houchins, and Flores (2006)
examined the use of systematic instruction to teach three
students, aged 12 to 15 years, to sound
out and read words both in isolation and in text formats. They
used a modified version of Level
A of the Corrective Reading Program curriculum (Engelmann,
Meyer, Carnine, Becker, Eisele,

& Johnson, 1998), teaching the students to say and write letter
sounds, to say and write sounds in
words, and to sound out words while saying them fast. Over a
six-month period, all three
students showed evidence of identifying letter sound
correspondences, sounding out and
blending words, and applying these skills when reading
sentences and short passages. The
students also showed increased recognition of words from either
the Edmark Reading Program
or the Dolch Sight Word list.
The foregoing studies exemplify the promise of systematic
instruction, especially when
using programmed materials. However, we have four concerns
related to what teachers should
expect as a result of their instruction and one concern related to
how teachers address the context
in which instruction occurs. Our first concern is that the
foregoing and other studies (e.g.,
Gersten & Maggs, 1982) do not provide evidence of changes in
reading comprehension – a
desired outcome of phonics-based instruction (NRP, 2000).
Given that students with Autism
Spectrum Disorder can acquire “code-based skills” relatively

easily but then show persistent
problems with comprehension (Whalon et al., 2009), teachers
who are considering the use of
instructional time to teach students with moderate to severe
disabilities decoding and other
phonics-related skills need more scientific evidence showing
how phonics instruction can
concurrently build and support comprehension.
A second concern is that programmed instructional packages
available to teachers tend to
construct skills in an additive fashion, with skills overlearned in
isolation then becoming the
same expectations within programmed text passages. Teachers
need scientific evidence that
skills learned from reading programmed text transfer to other
authentic reading materials, and the
foregoing studies do not provide sufficient evidence of this. A
third concern of ours is that
teachers will wonder about the role of rote memorization, as
opposed to the “true” problem-

solving processes of word attack and decoding, when students
are taught phonics-related word
recognition strategies via systematic, discrete trial instruction.
Put differently, teachers need
more information than is presently provided about the
mechanisms of letter and word processing
that are employed by phonics-learning students with moderate
to severe disabilities when they
are engaged in tasks such as reading text passages. A fourth
concern relates to one of the primary
purposes for learning to read; that is, accessing subject matter
and acquiring new information.
We contend that teachers need more scientific evidence than
provided in the extant literature as
to how students with moderate to severe disabilities who are
receiving instruction on decoding
skills can use these skills to access and utilize authentic age-
appropriate text materials. Fifth and
finally, while there is evidence that systematic instruction
conducted in self-contained or isolated
contexts can lead to performance changes in phonics-related
skills for students with moderate to
severe disabilities, we contend that teachers need proof that the
same results could not have been

more readily achieved -- and with other academic and social
benefits -- via general education
class participation, with or without brief pull-aside
interventions.
There exists the possibility that our five concerns will prove to
be unfounded. However,
we raise these concerns to encourage researchers to address
them in future reviews of the
literature and in their future research, so that teachers will have
the scientific evidence that they
need to confidently apply research results in their classroom
practices.
Fluency
Fluency is a composite concept consisting of rate, accuracy, and
prosody. More proficient
readers display greater ease and natural expression in their oral
production of continuous
narrative and appear to comprehend text more as they read it
(Hicks, 2009; NRP, 2000). The
NRP (2000) extended this finding by interpreting the research
as showing that, as students build

fluency via guided oral reading, they also develop
comprehension skills.
When considering the research on fluency for students with
moderate to severe
disabilities, there appear to be three ways that fluency
instruction is being conceptualized. First,
we interpret some of the research as conceptualizing instruction
on fluency as teaching
nonreaders to accurately read aloud sequences of words that
originally were taught in isolation
(see Brown et al., 1972; Brown & Perlmutter, 1971). For
example, Brown and Perlmutter (1971)
successfully taught seven students who were nonreaders to read
word-by-word 9 short sentences
(e.g., “The penny is on top of the box”), and then perform
simple motor response related to the
sentences (e.g., pointing to the penny on top of the box).
Second, we interpret some of the
research as conceptualizing instruction on fluency as teaching
students who already possess
some text reading skills to improve their oral reading accuracy.
For example, Singh and
colleagues (see Singh, 1990; Singh & Singh, 1985a; Singh &
Singh, 1984; Singh & Singh, 1986;

Singh, Singh, & Winton, 1984) focused on accurate reading and
the self-correction of reading
errors through the use of guided oral reading of short passages
and stories, and found a variety of
systematic interventions that had a positive impact on oral
reading accuracy. Third, we interpret
some of the research as conceptualizing instruction on fluency
as teaching multiple reading skills
across several or all of the five pillars, and aspects of fluency
serve as indices of changes in
reading proficiency. For example, over a one-year period in
self-contained classrooms Apffel,
Kelleher, Lilly, and Richardson (1975) used either the DISTAR
reading program that emphasizes
“a phonics approach to reading,” or the Rebus reading program
that emphasizes a whole word
approach (p. 230), to teach 60 students labeled “trainable
mentally retarded.” Based on progress
in oral reading skills (e.g., reading accuracy and errors) the
authors concluded that, regardless of

which program was used, “…nearly all of the 60 participating
TMR students demonstrated some
capacity to profit from reading instruction” (p. 229). More
recently a study by Osborn et al.
(2007) reflected this conceptualization of fluency when over a
six-month period they used peer
tutors to augment instruction regularly provided to elementary-
aged students, including 31
students with moderate to severe disabilities. The instruction
targeted skills related to all five of
the pillars and was provided during one-to-one tutoring sessions
lasting 30-minutes each, for
three or four days each week. They found that students in the
experimental group showed
significantly higher scores on the fluency subtest of the
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 1996).
The studies reflecting all three conceptualizations of fluency
instruction suggest that
specific forms of systematic instruction can be effective when
applied to aspects of fluency.
However, teachers reviewing these studies need to look beyond
evidence of acquisition and into
issues of the value and utility of the reported results.

We are concerned when fluency is conceptualized in the first
way (i.e., teaching skills for
accurately reading and responding to sequences of discrete
words previously taught in isolation)
whether teachers can anticipate generalization to other
curriculum-relevant reading materials
following significant investments of instruction and time.
Reading to acquire meaning relies on a
generative process in which word interchangeability is a
necessary quality. While the Brown and
Perlmutter (1971) study described above was groundbreaking in
showing how literacy goals
involving connected text were attainable by students with
moderate to severe disabilities, the
study reported no generalization data in relation to
combinations of other different words.
To address the foregoing concern, teachers might augment their
instruction with matrix
training, which has been reported to be successful in the
communication instruction literature

(e.g., Goldstein, 1983; Nigam, Schlosser, & Lloyd, 2006;
Striefel, Wetherby, & Karlan, 1978). In
this approach, symbols or words representing action words,
objects, and adjectives are
systematically varied in relation to each other during
instruction, and generalization to novel
word combinations within the matrix of targeted words is
examined as instruction proceeds. At
least with respect to oral language and augmentative
communication systems some positive
results have been reported; however, teachers still should look
for evidence that students can
move beyond words and word sequences contained within the
matrices, and such evidence is not
adequate in these studies.
When fluency is conceptualized in the second way (i.e.,
improving accuracy during oral
reading of connected text) we note the inadequate consideration
of two key components of
fluency, rate and prosody. There are, however, additional
concerns that relate directly to the
robustness of the successful skill changes that are reported. For
instance, in the foregoing studies
by Singh and colleagues: (a) improvements in reading accuracy

were documented mostly within
intervention contexts in which there was high teacher control, a
condition which might promote
students’ dependence on the instructing adults (McNaughton,
1981); (b) not all measures of
accuracy showed improvements from baseline to intervention;
(c) generalized use of skills was
seldom assessed and, when assessed, it did not always occur;
(d) maintenance of skills was
seldom assessed and, when it was assessed, data were collected
over short time intervals and
with the same text passages that were used during instruction;
and finally, (e) measures of
reading comprehension were used infrequently and, when used,
the results were equivocal.
When fluency is conceptualized in the third way (i.e., multiple
reading skills are taught
addressing some or all of the five pillars, and fluency indices
are reported) we have concerns
regarding the usefulness and the robustness of the research
evidence. For example, Apffel et al.

(1975) reported overall positive changes in oral reading
proficiency in relation to both reading
programs; however, the results of an analysis of patterns of
variation in skill production showed
that (a) individual students varied notably in their responses to
the two different programs, and
(b) oral reading “error rates” and “correct rates” varied
considerably even in students receiving
instruction in the same program. We also are concerned about
the usefulness of their findings
because they report, “Children who had not been able to
demonstrate adequate progress were
reassigned to TMR classes where reading instruction was less
strongly emphasized” (p. 232).
Few details were provided about the criteria used to re-assign
students to the other classes, and
no information was provided on the number of students
dropped. Attrition and lack of details
raise questions regarding the applicability of the study’s
evidence to the full population of
students. Similarly, while Osborn et al. (2007) reported
positive changes in fluency in relation to
their peer-tutoring program, there were other reported results
that raised questions about the

learning that occurred in their study participants. Specifically,
instruction occurred across all five
pillars; yet, there were no significant results on any of the other
reading measures, including a
composite Woodcock-Johnson index (Woodcock-Johnson
Proficiency Battery – Revised,
Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) that incorporated reading
comprehension. Finally, across
the studies considered here, evidence that changes in fluency
are accompanied by changes in
reading comprehension seem insufficient. For teachers who
want reading instruction to
ultimately contribute to comprehension, we believe this absence
of evidence should be troubling.
When considering the need to employ instructional methods that
best equip students for
accessing and comprehending curriculum content, we contend
that more research is needed on
how fluency is impacted by instruction in phonological and
decoding skills, and how such

outcomes relate to reading comprehension. To illustrate,
consider that reading rate is a function
of both reading proficiency and text complexity (Hicks, 2009;
Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, &
Meisinger, 2010), and the mark of the proficient reader is not
rate per se but rather “appropriate
pacing” so that comprehension is facilitated (Kuhn et al.). In
their study that taught decoding
skills, Bradford et al. (2006) reported that fluency worsened as
students advanced in their reading
skills and were exposed to longer text passages. They stated that
“…as passages became longer,
[the students’] fluency seemed to be [adversely] affected” (p.
341). This raises questions about
the course and function of fluency change when documented
progress is occurring in reading
skills related to the other pillars, especially phonics. We wonder
whether what Bradford et al.
saw with the onset of fluency problems was changes in reading
pace that reflected emerging and
tentative efforts by the students to comprehend the more
complex material. Alternatively, we
wonder whether these breakdowns reflect difficulties in
decoding or word recall when the

quantity of information being memorized as a consequence of
rote instruction is substantial. If
the former, then further research is needed to determine whether
concurrent instruction in
comprehension could alleviate fluency problems when progress
is being made in rudimentary
skills, such as decoding and word recognition; if the latter, we
need to better understand how to
enhance learning, perhaps considering more closely the role of
both instructional timing and
affect in how reading skills are acquired. Regardless, evidence
that bears on specific learning
patterns such as reported above would assist teachers in
understanding how instructional
methods reported as “successful” should be configured and
delivered to ensure that students with
moderate to severe disabilities are being taught meaningful and
useful literacy skills.
Vocabulary
The NRP (2000) characterized vocabulary knowledge as skills
for recognizing and

understanding words presented both orally and in print. The
panel acknowledged the historical
importance of vocabulary instruction in the teaching of reading,
and it portrayed the acquisition
of vocabulary as a dynamic process, characterized by
“continuous growth in word knowledge,”
by the interplay of decoding skills with word knowledge, and by
the ongoing recall of previous
word knowledge when encountering new words (p. 13).
Emphasizing that the “essence” of
reading is comprehension, the NRP asserted that the magnitude
of a person’s vocabulary
knowledge is a critical factor in his or her ability at “making
sense of text” (p.13). The NRP
stressed the importance of repetition and repeated exposure to
words when teaching vocabulary,
and it called for direct and explicit instruction on vocabulary.
Finally, the NRP asserted that
vocabulary knowledge is not just the ability to identify words
on sight; rather, it is an integral,
progressive, and ever expanding aspect of reading
comprehension.
When considering research studies in which successful
vocabulary instruction has been

demonstrated for students with moderate to severe disabilities,
we have two concerns. First,
although there has been a longstanding emphasis on vocabulary
instruction with students who
have moderate to severe disabilities (Browder et al., 2006;
Browder & Xin, 1998; Singh &
Singh, 1985b), we are concerned that this vocabulary
instruction has sometimes focused on
teaching students to memorize word lists that do not reflect the
NRP (2000) emphasis on
vocabulary acquisition as a progressive, iterative, and ever-
expanding process. For instance,
there are studies focusing on the acquisition of lists of discrete
vocabulary words that are
selected (a) based on their conceptual relation to community
purposes, such as reading signs,
recognizing danger, or completing common forms (e.g., Ault,
Gast, & Wolery, 1988; Blyden,
1989; Collins & Stinson, 1994; Doyle, Gast, Wolery, Ault, &
Meyer, 1992; Karsh, Repp, &

Lenz, 1990; Miracle, Collins, Schuster, & Grisham-Brown,
2001; Singleton, Schuster, Morse, &
Collins, 1999); and/or (b) based on consideration of what very
young or beginning readers might
be expected to learn or easily perform (Barudin & Hourcade,
1990; Koury & Browder, 1986;
Van der Bijl, Alant, & Lloyd, 2006). We think that these
methods for selecting and teaching
vocabulary words can be limiting, because they are not
explicitly designed to provide students
with moderate to severe disabilities substantive links to
narrative text materials, to relevant
grade-level curriculum, or to interest-based materials.
Second, we are concerned that, when comprehension was
assessed in these vocabulary
instruction research studies, it was not always assessed in a
manner that is consistent with NRP
(2000) vocabulary instruction concepts. For example, there are
studies in which comprehension
was assessed through students’: (a) recognition of the correct
word when shown a picture (Basil
& Reyes, 2003; Doyle, Wolery, Gast, & Ault., 1990; Griffen,
Schuster, & Morse, 1998); (b)
verbalization of a simple definition when shown the target word

and given a verbal prompt
(Gast, Wolery, Morris, Doyle, & Meyer, 1990; Griffen et al.,
1998); (c) recall of a target word
when exposed to different or more natural contexts (e.g., Doyle
et al., 1990; Rohena, Jitendra, &
Browder, 2002; Singleton et al., 1999); or (d) performance of a
motor response consistent with
the meaning of the word (Collins & Griffen, 1996; Doyle et al.,
1990).
While there are probably a number of reasons why studies of
vocabulary instruction
involving students with moderate to severe disabilities have
chosen their particular dependent
measures, we suggest that one reason might lie with the
intentions and purposes behind these
studies. It seems likely that a number of these studies have
focused less on how to teach a full
complement of vocabulary reading skills and more on the
relative effectiveness of specific
universally applicable intervention strategies (e.g., prompting
processes, reinforcement

strategies). We suggest that, when research is concentrated on
what constitutes effective discrete
trial instruction, the investigators might have chosen literacy
outcomes less for their potential to
provide deep and abiding understandings of vocabulary, and
more because they are
parsimonious, precise, and reliable for assessing cause, effect,
and efficiency. We suggest that
single word identification, matching, and recognition measures,
with and without simple
measures of word understanding, meet the latter conditions.
While acknowledging that these studies might have achieved
their purpose of providing
scientific evidence that a particular strategy “works,” we are
nevertheless concerned that these
studies could be used by teachers to draw conclusions about
what to teach, instead of conclusions
solely about how to teach. Thus, teachers reviewing the
literature for reasonable and feasible
outcomes to go along with their evidence-based strategies for
literacy instruction could easily
misinterpret these particular studies as providing evidence of
useful outcomes as well. Moreover,

we are concerned that practices in schools might now reflect
this dilemma, with both
instructional strategies and literacy outcomes from this research
literature reflected in teacher
practices. For example, we contend that teachers are using
discrete trial, prompting and
reinforcement formats to teach information related to weather,
dates, holidays, and personal data
via repeated cycles of calendar and morning circle; and survival
and community word
recognition (e.g., stop, exit, and poison) via frequent,
intermittent flash card routines. Aside from
concerns about how students with moderate to severe
disabilities might experience at an
emotional level these instructional processes when they are
delivered repeatedly across their
grades and without reference to age-appropriateness or
meaningful and motivating contexts,
there is a pressing need for research to demonstrate whether
such instruction actually leads to
generalized use of the targeted vocabulary across relevant life

contexts (Browder & Xin, 1998),
to meaningful and lasting vocabulary comprehension, or to
“continuous growth of word
knowledge” (NRP, 2000, p. 13). Hence, we believe that
teachers’ pervasive use of these formats
of literacy instruction must be viewed critically. We are also
concerned that this type of
instruction might be self-perpetuating, promoting in teachers, as
well as parents and
administrators, a false sense that valued outcomes are resulting
from instruction, because the
target words appear to have face validity and students might
respond reliably during instructional
trials, as shown in the research.
We emphasize that we cannot infer cause and effect between
research of this type and
observed teacher choices about what vocabulary to teach in
schools; yet, there is plausibility to
our stance that some relationship exists, and that it could
become stronger as teachers are
increasingly pressured to justify their practices and outcomes
based on the scientific literature.
Hence, it behooves researchers interested in direct, discrete trial
instruction protocols to take

seriously this possibility, and begin considering different
choices in what is taught to
demonstrate effect, paying closer attention to the NRP (2000)
characterization of vocabulary
knowledge as a progressive and constructive process.
Comprehension
Reading comprehension is the sine qua non of literacy
proficiency, entailing text reading
together with understanding (Raphael & Au, 2005; Snow, 2002).
It is an “intentional problem
solving thinking” process in which the reader “derives meaning
from text” through active
interaction with the text (NRP, 2000, p. 14). The NRP found
evidence that comprehension “is
enhanced” when students relate their own “knowledge and
experience” to the ideas being
expressed in the material being read. It requires not only the
ability to access familiar and easy
text, but also the ability to access, learn, and reflect on
unfamiliar and difficult text (Snow,

2002). The NRP (2000) called for explicit instruction,
identifying seven research-based
approaches to explicit instruction: (a) comprehension
monitoring, (b) cooperative learning, (c)
graphic and semantic organizers, (d) question answering, (e)
question generation, (f) story
structure, and (g) summarization. Finally, the panel stressed
that the outcome of instruction
should be students’ acquisition and use of strategies for
independent text comprehension, such as
independently using knowledge of text structure, generating and
answering questions, and
retelling and summarizing (Mills, 2009).
Literacy instruction within and across the five NRP pillars
should ultimately assist
students with moderate to severe disabilities to derive meaning
through their own efforts to
understand connected text. As shown in the previous sections,
we have concerns that there is an
evidence gap between demonstrations of success at teaching
basic skills of reading and
demonstrations of the emergence of independence in reading
comprehension. Clearly, teachers

of students with moderate to severe disabilities could benefit
from evidence that particular
methods of phonological, fluency, and vocabulary skill
instruction concurrently support text
comprehension skill acquisition. Additionally, teachers of
disabilities could benefit from research that explores multi-
component instruction in which
reading comprehension capabilities are systematically taught
and are primary outcomes achieved
alongside the basic skills of reading.
For example, Allor, Mathes, Roberts, Jones, and Champlin
(2010) conducted a multi-
component reading instruction study which reported measures
of comprehension for their
participants in first to fourth grade from 10 public schools, who
were randomly assigned to either
a treatment (n= 16) or contrast (n=12) group. Students in the
contrast group received instruction
that already was typically provided in their programs, while
students in the treatment group

received “daily, comprehensive reading instruction in small
groups . . . for approximately 40
minutes per session” (p. 3) for “one to one and a half years” (p.
16). Intervention materials
consisted of a modified and expanded version of a packaged
program (i.e., Early Interventions in
Reading). Instruction on reading comprehension focused on
“comprehension strategies” (p. 9)
using storybook read-alouds, stories with decodable text,
supporting pictures, and other
materials. While most of their dependent measures focused on
basic skills (e.g., phonemic
awareness), pre- and post-data on reading comprehension also
were collected using the passage
comprehension test of The Woodcock Language Proficiency
Battery – Revised (Woodcock,
1991). Small gains were reported for both groups, but the
treatment group showed greater gains,
and there was a moderate effect size reported (.69) that was
statistically significant.
While these results are promising, we have three concerns that
we believe compromise
this evidence. First, insufficient information is reported on the
educational programming

provided for students in the contrast group; that is, their
programs could have focused on any
content, from reading comprehension to self-care. Hence,
“significant results” might imply only
that intensive prolonged reading instruction is better than no
reading instruction at all (see
Slavin, 2008). Second, replication is made difficult by the
modifications made to the standard
programs, reportedly to match the baseline levels of students.
Insufficient information is
provided about the modifications made per student, and the
process used to match the
modifications to students’ needs. Third and finally, the
intervention had effects on reading
comprehension for some students, but it seemed to have less
impact on other students.
Specifically, it was reported that only 8 of the 16 participants
(50%) actually achieved program
levels at which they could be “working on basic comprehension
strategies, such as retelling

stories, sequencing main events, and story grammar” (p. 18).
In light of the NRP (2000) emphasis on reading comprehension
strategy instruction, we
believe that teachers need more research addressing this
instruction when it is grounded in grade-
level general education content and contexts. As an illustration,
consider what instruction might
look like when using the Mills (2009) sequence for teaching
comprehension strategies within and
across reading lessons for a heterogeneous class of students: (1)
activating prior knowledge, (2)
making inferences, (3) using knowledge of text structure, (4)
visualizing the story and related
events, (5) generating and answering questions, and (6) retelling
and summarizing. These
strategies should be modeled during speaking and listening
activities before, during, and after
reading and telling stories, a process consistent with the NRP
recommendation that teachers
repeatedly demonstrate strategy application during literacy
activities while encouraging students
to use them. The scientific evidence examined by teachers of
disabilities should inform them about the supports necessary

and the learning that can occur
when reading comprehension involves constructing and
reconstructing knowledge in relation to
repeated experiences with text, and where the instruction
consists of overlapping and complexly
sequenced activities that involve interactions with typical peers.
Conclusions, Questions, and Limitations
We used the five-pillars framework advanced by the NRP
(2000) to explore issues and
concerns about literacy instruction with students who have
moderate to severe disabilities. Our
focus was on what teachers need to learn when reviewing
research to improve their instructional
practices and to achieve better literacy outcomes for these
students. We raised concerns about
what constitutes adequate scientific evidence for teachers; we
offered studies from the extant
research with students who have moderate to severe disabilities
to illustrate these concerns; and
we suggested ways to improve research to better serve the needs

of teachers.
The NRP (2000) report strongly recommended using direct,
explicit instruction across the
five pillars of reading instruction. When selecting examples to
illustrate our concerns, we chose
quantitative studies that defined literacy in relation to reading
and writing, and that focused on
direct instruction of discrete skills for students with moderate to
severe disabilities. We recognize
that the studies that we present here do not fully represent the
spectrum of literacy instruction
studies with students who have moderate to severe disabilities.
For instance, the extant literature
includes quantitative studies on the impact of embedding
literacy instruction in general education
activities (e.g., McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Riesen,
2002). However, our intent here
was not to provide a comprehensive review of the literature.
Rather, it was to provide research
illustrations of studies that emphasized instruction of skills
associated with each of the five
pillars, and that appeared to mirror what we believe are aspects
of the NRP report’s findings and
orientation to instruction that are in need of critical discussion

and more research.
We also acknowledge that we did not adequately address issues
of research design.
Instead, we used a scenario in which teachers working from a
five pillars orientation search for
evidence about approaches to instruction within studies that
likely vary in rigor with respect to
methodological criteria. By concentrating solely on possible
research review activities of
teachers who instruct students with moderate to severe
disabilities, we presented what we believe
are discrepancies between the evidence that they might see and
the evidence that they might
need. The most prominent concerns we raised by using this
process touch on issues of external
validity. On the one hand, teachers might find themselves
skeptical as to whether focused code-
based instruction has validity if the ultimate goal of their own
classroom instruction is to
facilitate independence in text understanding and access to the
general curriculum. On the other

hand, teachers might be misled to believe that certain forms of
discrete trial vocabulary
instruction are valid for their students as long as the lists of
vocabulary items are functional and
relate to things students need to know in their daily lives. We
also raised questions that touch on
the validity of multi-component instructional packages,
suggesting that teachers need to know
more about how such packages lead to comprehension, how
generalization beyond the
immediate material of the packages can be realized, and whether
the hours of instruction
required when using such packages will eventually pay off, via
promoting access for their
students to grade-appropriate general curriculum. Since, in this
era of standards, districts
increasing might look to commercial packages as ways to both
standardize instruction and
provide alternative learning experiences to learners who do not
appear to fit the norm of the
“typical student,” we suggest that these questions are especially
disconcerting, requiring a closer
look at the literature base relevant to these issues.

Reflecting our concerns with external validity, we suggest that
teachers need scientific
evidence that is drawn more from studies that match conditions
of good classroom teaching, and
we recommend that studies in which instructional strategies
drawn from the five pillars are
examined should match more closely the ecologies and
activities of general education classes. As
an example, let us consider vocabulary instruction. To both
improve vocabulary instruction and
make it relevant to grade-level general curriculum we believe
teachers need scientific evidence
from studies that parallel their reality; that is, studies that
incorporate complex sets of
independent variables found in general education classes and
sets of dependent measures that
express richer forms of learning. For instance, a study might
first propose ways that vocabulary
can be selected for instruction so that it is correlated with
grade-appropriate textual content and
matches the learning processes of students with different ability

levels. Researchers then could
examine the results of a sequence of complex instructional
activities that continuously link
vocabulary acquisition back to relevant text, measuring both
lexicon acquisition and connected
text comprehension in different learners (see Stahl & Bravo,
2010). Furthermore, teachers would
benefit if such research also assessed patterns of semantic
learning. A useful tool for assessing
patterns of student learning in this regard might be a network or
semantic map, displaying
interconnections between the units of information or the
concepts underlying a lesson’s key
vocabulary. Finally, teachers also would benefit if such
research took into consideration the
previous knowledge and real interests of each student, and
processes of information exchange
each student demonstrates when learning is occurring, such as
in cooperative learning formats.
When effective teachers plan and implement meaningful literacy
instruction they utilize
decision-making processes such as the foregoing; that is,
processes that account for a multitude
of ecological, intra-student, and curriculum content variables.

Hence, we contend that
instructional research also should reflect, as much as possible,
these same sets of variables. An
implication of this approach to literacy instruction research is
that discrete trial techniques (e.g.,
time delay) might best be examined less as universally
applicable strategies independent of
content and context, and more as integral components of larger
instructional frameworks. The
research on embedded instruction by McDonnell and his
colleagues (e.g., McDonnell et al.,
2002) begins to address such issues. Research of this type does
not devalue discrete trial
techniques, but it does communicate their contributions to
learning in proportion to that of other
components of effective instruction, and it demonstrates their
effectiveness in a manner that
assists teachers to better incorporate them into general
education contexts and activities.
There is another external validity concern that we have that
does not arise from studies

within our own field; instead it arises from the NRP (2000)
findings themselves, and this concern
raises questions about the generalizability of the scientific
evidence of the report with respect to
students with moderate to severe disabilities. To understand this
concern, it is necessary to
contrast students with moderate to severe disabilities with
another group of students for whom
the report might have clear merit -- students who do not have an
intellectual disability but who
are struggling with reading and might, therefore, receive
specialized, direct instruction, perhaps
as part of a response-to-intervention (RtI) process. Prior to
receiving an intervention, a particular
student within this latter group might be struggling, but he or
she still advances through the
grades and steadily accumulates a history of experiences and
opportunities to read, to try to
understand what he/she reads, and to acquire literacy skills
across general education contexts and
content areas. In contrast, a student with a moderate to severe
intellectual disability is much more
likely to be served for all or most of the day throughout his/her
school career in a self-contained

class (Smith, 2007); this means he or she does not experience at
any point in his or her school
career the range of literacy activities and communities that are
routinely part of life for the
student who is a struggling reader.
In the case of the struggling reader, specialized interventions
that are direct, isolated, and
remedial augment other literacy activities and experiences that
occur during their school day,
with the goal being to improve their reading for better access to
the general curriculum. In the
case of the student with a moderate to severe intellectual
disability, instruction that is direct,
isolated, and remedial frequently supplants the literacy
activities and experiences that occur in
other contexts during their school day, with the goal being to
improve discrete reading-related
skills. We acknowledge that there is an absence of research on
the effects and implications of
this disparity; however, based on what we know about the

impact of exposure-to-print on literacy
skills (Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding, 1988), and what we know
about the significance of context
as a variable impacting the results of instruction (Jackson,
Ryndak, & Wehmeyer, 2008-2009),
we propose that, on average, the results of direct instruction
will differ in these two cases, and
that a student receiving the restricted range of experiences
likely is at a disadvantage when
contrasted with the student who is exposed to a wider range of
experiences. This point of view is
further supported by what we know about generalization (Stokes
& Baer, 1977): For the student
with an intellectual disability in the self-contained setting, there
would be limited opportunities
and thus little support for skills to generalize from literacy
relevant contexts of the school into
the specialized intervention situation; inversely, there would be
limited opportunities and thus
little support for skills to generalize from the specialized
intervention situation into other relevant
contexts of the school or larger community.
The latter concern relates directly to NRP (2000) findings with
respect to direct, explicit

instruction. From an external validity standpoint, we suggest
that while the report’s evidence is
likely applicable to struggling readers receiving direct and
specialized instruction designed to
augment a range of experiences within and across general
education contexts, it might not be
applicable to students for whom the direct and specialized
instruction fully replaces general
education literacy experiences. In light of this, we think that
referencing the NRP evidence as a
justification for explicit direct instruction for students served in
self-contained settings might be
an improper extension of these findings.
We can go a step further by examining how the NRP’s (2000)
evidence for the value of
“explicit instruction” might apply in these two different
circumstances. It is likely that many
teachers would define explicitness as the clarity by which they
present directives and demand
responses from a student within an instructional routine. We

think, however, that explicitness
should refer not to whether a target outcome of instruction is
clear to educators, but rather to
whether it is clear to students; that is, whether students
experience cognitive clarity with respect
to instructional expectations (Cunningham & Cunningham,
2002; Downing, 1971). For the
struggling reader who experiences literacy opportunities in
multiple settings, the purpose and
applicability of the instruction might be obvious (i.e., explicit),
and learning is facilitated. For the
student with a moderate to severe disability who experiences
literacy opportunities mainly in one
segregated special education context, the purpose and
applicability of the specialized instruction
might not be obvious (i.e., less explicit), and learning might
then lack the necessary robustness
for acquisition, retention, generalization, and wider application.
Put differently, we suggest that
“explicitness” might not be present in the latter situation
despite “clear” instructions, and that
learning might be short-lived because skills being taught cannot
be linked cognitively by the
student to literacy activities that are of consequence in his or

her life at school.
Given the foregoing, we perhaps have a partial answer to the
dichotomy raised at the start
of this paper: students with moderate to severe disabilities are
being denied opportunities to be
part of larger literacy communities even though their potential
for learning and using literacy has
been demonstrated. The dilemma might lie in part with learning
differences that are largely a
consequence of being isolated from general education and
receiving, perhaps exclusively,
specialized instruction in segregated contexts. Potential for
progress, therefore, is less likely for
students with moderate to severe disabilities not due to their
disabilities, but due to their lack of
exposure to the many and varied literacy opportunities that
constitute what we call “general
education.” It is a vicious cycle, in which the direct instruction
processes produce results that
cannot be fully applied, refined, and generalized because of lack
of access to the larger arena of

literacy opportunities, and the continuation of apparent skill
deficiencies and instructional
problems (e.g., prompt dependence, lack of generalization, poor
retention) provide yet another
reason to maintain student confinement in segregated special
education contexts. We believe that
the perspective of teachers, researchers, and others in education
about the learning potential of
these students would change if the students were provided full
access to general education
content in general education contexts, while supplementing
their instruction in those contexts
with learning adaptations or, if needed, short-term specialized
instruction. We also believe that
the scientific evidence made available to teachers in future
literacy instruction research can help
promote this, if it more directly emulates the conditions and
variables associated with quality
instruction with this content and in these settings.

References
Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Champlin, T., & Cheatham, J. P.
(2009). Research-based techniques
for teaching early reading skills to students with intellectual
disabilities. Education and
Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44(3), 356-366.
Allor, J., Mathes, P., Roberts, K., Jones, F., & Champlin, T.
(2010). Teaching students with
moderate intellectual disabilities to read: An experimental
examination of a
comprehensive reading program. Education and Training in
Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, 45(1), 3-22.
Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988).
Growth in reading and how children
spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly,
23, 285-303.
Apffel, J. A., Kelleher, J., Lilly, M. S., & Richardson, R.
(1975). Developmental reading for
moderately retarded children. Education and Training of the
Mentally Retarded, 10, 229-
235.

Ault, M. M., Gast, D. L., & Wolery, M. (1988). Comparison of
progressive and constant time-
delay procedures in teaching community-sign word reading.
American Journal on Mental
Retardation, 93, 44-56.
Barudin, S. I., & Hourcade, J. J. (1990). Relative effectiveness
of three methods of reading
instruction in developing specific recall and transfer skills in
learners with moderate and
severe mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation, 25, 286-291.
Basil, C., & Reyes, S. (2003). Acquisition of literacy skills by
children with severe disability.
Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 19.
Blyden, A. E. (1989). Survival word acquisition in mentally
retarded adolescents with
multihandicaps: Effects of color-reversed stimulus materials.
Journal of Special
Education, 22(4), 493-501.
Bracey, S., Maggs, A., & Morath, P. (1975). The effects of a

direct phonics approach in teaching
reading. The Australian Journal on the Education of Backward
Children, 22, 83-90.
Bradford, S., Shippen, M. E., Alberto, P., Houchins, D. E., &
Flores, M. (2006). Using
systematic instruction to teach decoding skills to middle school
students with moderate
intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 41(4),
333-343.
Browder, D. M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G., Gibbs, S.
L., & Flowers, C. (2008).
Evaluation of the effectiveness of an early literacy program for
students with significant
developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 33-52.
Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell,
L., & Algozzine, B. (2006).
Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant
cognitive disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 72, 392-410.
Browder, D. M., & Xin, Y. P. (1998). A meta-analysis and
review of sight word research and its
implications for teaching functional reading to individuals with

moderate and severe
disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 32, 130-153.
Brown, L., Jones, S., Troccolo, E., Heiser, C., Bellamy, T., &
Sontag, E. (1972). Teaching
functional reading to young trainable students: Toward
longitudinal objectives. Journal
of Special Education, 6, 237-246.
Brown, L., & Perlmutter, L. (1971). Teaching functional reading
to trainable level retarded
students. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 6,
74-84.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and
quasi-experimental designs for
research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cassidy, J., Valadez, C. M., & Garrett, S. D. (2010). Literacy
trends and issues: A look at the
five pillars and the cement that supports them. The Reading
Teacher, 63(8), 644-655.
Chhabra, V., & McCardle, P. (2004). Contributions to evidence-
based research. In P. McCardle

& V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research
(pp. 3-11). Baltimore:
Brookes.
Collins, B. C., & Griffen, A. K. (1996). Teaching students with
moderate disabilities to make
safe responses to product warning labels. Education and
Treatment of Children, 19, 30-
45.
Collins, B. C., & Stinson, D. M. (1994). Teaching generalized
reading of product warning labels
to adolescents with mental disabilities through the use of key
words. Exceptionality, 5(3),
163-181.
Conners, F. A., Rosenquist, C. J., Sligh, A. C., Atwell, J. A., &
Kiser, T. (2006). Phonological
reading skills acquisition by children with mental retardation.
Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 27, 121-137.
Copeland, S. R., & Cosbey, J. (2009). Making progress in the
general curriculum: Rethinking
effective instructional practices. Research and Practice for
Persons With Severe

Disabilities, 33-34, 214-227.
Copeland, S. R., & Keefe, E. B. (2007). Effective literacy
instruction for students with
moderate or severe disabilities. Baltimore: Brookes.
Cunningham, P. M., & Cunnigham, J. W. (2002). What we know
about how to teach phonics. In
A. E. F. S. J. Samuels (Ed.), What research has to say about
reading instruction. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Downing, J. (1971, July). The cognitive clarity theory of
learning to read. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the United Kingdom
Reading Association.
Manchester, England.
Downing, J. E. (2005). Teaching literacy to students with
significant disabilities.
Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Doyle, P. M., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Meyer, S.
(1992). Teaching discrete skills

to students with moderate mental retardation in small-group
instructional arrangements.
Exceptionality, 3(4), 233-253.
Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., & Ault, M. J. (1990).
Comparison of constant time delay
and the system of least prompts in teaching preschoolers with
developmental delays.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 11, 1-22.
Edmark reading program: Word recognition (2nd ed.) (1992).
Cambridge, MA: Edmark
Corporation.
Eikeseth, S., & Jahr, E. (2001). The UCLA reading and writing
program: An evaluation of the
beginning stages. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22,
289-307.
Engelmann, S., Meyer, L., Carnine, L., Becker, W., Eisele, J., &
Johnson, G. (1998). Corrective
reading decoding strategies. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-
Hill.
Fallon, K. A., Light, J., McNaughton, D., Drager, K., &
Hammer, C. (2004). The effects of direct
instruction on the single-word reading skills of children who
require augmentative and

alternative communication. Journal of Speech, Language &
Hearing Research, 47, 1424-
1439.
Flippo, R. F. (1999). Redefining the reading wars: the war
against reading researchers.
Educational Leadership, 57(2), 38-41.
Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Morris, L. L., Doyle, P. M., & Meyer,
S. (1990). Teaching sight word
reading in a group instructional arrangement using constant
time delay. Exceptionality,
1(2), 81-96.
Gersten, R. M., & Maggs, A. (1982). Teaching the general case
to moderately retarded children:
Evaluation of a five year project. Analysis and Intervention in
Developmental
Disabilities, 2(4), 329-343.
Gillon, G. T. (2004). Phonological awareness: From research to
practice. New York: Guilford
Press.

Goetz, K., Hulme, C., Brigstocke, S., Carroll, J. M., Nasir, L.,
& Snowling, M. (2008). Training
reading and phoneme awareness in children with Down
Syndrome. Reading and Writing:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 395-412.
Goldstein, H. (1983). Recombinative generalization:
Relationship between environmental
conditions and the linguistic repertoires of language learners.
Analysis and Intervention in
Developmental Disabilities, 3, 279-293.
Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (1996). Assessment for
instructional decisions: Toward a
proactive/prevention model of decision-making for early
literacy skills. School
Psychology Quarterly, 11, 326−336.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and
reading disability. Remedial and
Special Education, 7(1), 6-10.
Griffen, A. K., Schuster, J. W., & Morse, T. E. (1998). The
acquisition of instructive feedback: A
comparison of continuous versus intermittent presentation
schedules. Education and
Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,

33, 42-61.
Hicks, C. P. (2009). A lesson on reading fluency learned from
The Tortoise and the Hare. The
Reading Teacher, 63(4), 319-323.
Hoogeveen, F. R., Birkhoff, A. E., Smeets, P. M., Lancioni, G.
E., & Boelens, H. H. (1989).
Establishing phonemic segmentation in moderately retarded
children. Remedial and
Special Education, 10(3), 47-53.
Hoogeveen, F. R., & Smeets, P. M. (1988). Establishing
phoneme blending in trainable mentally
retarded children. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 46-53.
Jackson, L. B., Ryndak, D. L., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2008-
2009). The dynamic relationship
between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for
inclusive education as a
research-based practice. Research and Practice for Persons With
Severe Disabilities,
33(4)/ 34(1), 175-195.

Joseph, L. M., & Seery, M. E. (2004). Where is the phonics?
Remedial and Special Education,
25, 88-94.
Karsh, K. G., Repp, A. C., & Lenz, M. W. (1990). A comparison
of the task demonstration
model and the standard prompting hierarchy in teaching word
identification to persons
with moderate retardation. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 11, 395-410.
Kliewer, C., & Biklen, D. (2001). "School's not really a place
for reading": A research synthesis
of the literate lives of students with severe disabilities. Journal
of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 1-12.
Koury, M., & Browder, D. M. (1986). The use of delay to teach
sight words by peer tutors
classified as moderately mentally retarded. Education and
Training of the Mentally
Retarded, 21, 252-258.
Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010).
Aligning theory and assessment
of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of
fluency. Reading Research

Quarterly, 45(2), 230-251.
Lonigan, C. J., & Shanahan, T. (2010). Developing early
literacy skills: Things we know
we know and things we know we don't know. Educational
Researcher, 39(4),
340-346.
McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., & Riesen, T.
(2002). Effects of embedded
instruction on students with moderate disabilities enrolled in
general education classes.
Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities, 37, 363-
377.
McLaughlin, M. J. (2010). Evolving interpretations of
educational equity and students with
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 265-278.
McNaughton, S. (1981). Low progress readers and teacher
instructional behavior during oral
reading: The risk of maintaining instructional dependence. The
Exceptional Child, 28,

167-176.
Mills, K. A. (2009). Floating on a sea of talk: Reading
comprehension through speaking and
listening. The Reading Teacher, 63(4), 325-329.
Miracle, S. A., Collins, B. C., Schuster, J. W., & Grisham-
Brown, J. (2001). Peer-versus teacher-
delivered instruction: Effects on acquisition and maintenance.
Education and Training in
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 373-
385.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(2000). Report of the National
Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific
research literature on reading and its implications for reading
instruction (NIH
Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Nigam, R., Schlosser, R. W., & Lloyd, L. L. (2006).
Concomitant use of the matrix strategy and
the mand-model procedure in teaching graphic symbol
combinations. Augmentative and

Alternative Communication, 22(3), 160-177.
Osborn, J., Freeman, A., Burley, M., Wilson, R., Jones, E., &
Rychener, S. (2007). Effect of
tutoring on reading achievement for students with cognitive
disabilities, specific learning
disabilities, and students receiving Title I services. Education
and Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 42, 467-474.
Raphael, T. E., & Au, K. H. (2005). QAR: Enhancing
comprehension and test taking across
grades and content areas. The Reading Teacher, 59, 206-221.
Reyna, V. F. (2004). Why scientific research? The importance
of evidence in changing
educational practices. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The
voice of evidence in
reading research (pp. 47-58). Baltimore: Brookes.
Rohena, E. I., Jitendra, A. K., & Browder, D. M. (2002).
Comparison of the effects of Spanish
and English constant time delay instruction on sight word
reading by Hispanic learners

with mental retardation. Journal of Special Education, 36, 169-
184.
Ryndak, D. L., Morrison, A. P., & Sommerstein, L. (1999).
Literacy before and after inclusion in
general education settings: A case study. Journal of the
Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps, 24, 5-22.
Singh, J., & Singh, N. (1985a). Comparison of word-supply and
word-analysis error correction
procedures on oral reading by mentally retarded children.
American Journal on Mental
Deficiency, 90(1), 64-70.
Singh, N. N. (1990). Effects of two error-correction procedures
on oral reading errors. Behavior
Modification, 14(2), 188-199.
Singh, N. N., & Singh, J. (1984). Antecedent control of oral
reading errors and self-corrections
by mentally retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 17, 111-119.
Singh, N. N., & Singh, J. (1985b). Reading acquisition and

remediation in the mentally retarded.
International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, 14,
165-199.
Singh, N., & Singh, J. (1986). A behavioural remediation
program for oral reading: effects on
errors and comprehension. Educational Psychology, 6(2), 105-
114.
Singh, N. N., Singh, J., & Winton, A. S. W. (1984). Positive
practice overcorrection of oral
reading errors. Behavior Modification, 8(1), 23-37.
Singleton, D. K., Schuster, J. W., Morse, T. E., & Collins, B. C.
(1999). A comparison of
antecedent prompt and test and simultaneous prompting
procedures in teaching grocery
words to adolescents with mental retardation. Education and
Training in Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34, 182-199.
Slavin, R. E. (2008). What works? Issues in synthesizing
educational program evaluations.
Educational Researcher, 37(1), 5-14.
Smith, P. (2007). Have we made any progress? Including
students with intellectual disabilities in
regular classrooms. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities,

45(5), 297-309.
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: toward a
research and development program in
reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Stahl, K. A., & Bravo, M. A. (2010). Contemporary classroom
vocabulary assessment for
content areas. The Reading Teacher, 63(7), 566-578.
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of
generalization. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349-367.
Striefel, S., Wetherby, B., & Karlan, G. (1978). Developing
generalized instruction-following
behavior in severely retarded people. In C. E. Meyers (Ed.),
Quality of life in severely
and profoundly mentally retarded people: Research foundations
for improvement.
Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
Van der Bijl, C., Alant, E., & Lloyd, L. (2006). A comparison
of two strategies of sight word

instruction in children with mental disability. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 27,
43-55.
Whalon, K. J., Otaiba, S. A., & Delano, M. E. (2009). Evidence-
based reading instruction for
individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Focus on Autism
and Other Developmental
Disorders, 24, 3-16.
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective
measurement or how applied
behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 11, 203-214.
Woodcock, R. W. (1991). Woodcock language proficiency
battery–Revised. Chicago: Riverside.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001).
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of
Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Yopp, H. K., & Yopp, R. H. (2000). Supporting phonemic
awareness development in the
classroom. The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 130-143.
Zascavage, V. T., & Keefe, C. H. (2004). Students with severe
speech and physical impairments:
Opportunity barriers to literacy. Focus on Autism and Other

Developmental Disorders,
19, 223-234.
1.
A retailer hasACCOUNTS receivable of $70000, total current
liabilities of 440000, and $50000 in case. What is the quick
ratio?
1.4
1.5
2.0
3.0
5 points
QUESTION 2
Assume that the retailer in problem 1 has totalINVENTORY on
hand of $120,000. What is the current ratio?
0.65
3.00

4.60
6.00
5 points
QUESTION 3
A clothing store hasACCOUNTS receivable totaling
$50,000,ACCOUNTS payable totaling $45,000, and net sales of
$50,000. What is the collection period?
50
183
227
365
5 points
QUESTION 4
Assume that the retailer in problem 3 has accounts receivable of
$15,000 and net sales of $30,000. What is the new collection
period?
91
183

274
335
5 points
QUESTION 5
A firm has total assets of $500,000, total liabilities of $350,000,
and annual net sales of $1,000,000. What is the assets-to-net-
sales ratio?
5%
7%
30%
50%
5 points
Click Save and Submit to save and

LITERACY INSTRUCTION ISSUES AND CONCERNS 1 .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to LITERACY INSTRUCTION ISSUES AND CONCERNS 1 .docx

Similar to LITERACY INSTRUCTION ISSUES AND CONCERNS 1 .docx (20)

More from SHIVA101531

More from SHIVA101531 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

LITERACY INSTRUCTION ISSUES AND CONCERNS 1 .docx