Running head: LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION Literacy Instruction in General Education Settings: A Call to Action Samantha Gross Toews The University of Kansas stoews@ku.edu Jennifer A. Kurth The University of Kansas jkurth@ku.edu Citation: Toews, S. G., & Kurth, J. A. (2019). Literacy Instruction in General Education Settings: A Call to Action. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, doi: 1540796919855373. 1 LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 2 Abstract While legislation and research have promoted inclusive education and the importance of literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs, the majority of literacy instruction research continues to occur in separate self-contained special education settings. This article is a call to action to the educational research community to elicit research on literacy instruction strategies, including collaborative planning, teaching, and material preparation related to grade-level general education curriculum in general education school settings. Findings from current research on literacy instruction in separate special education and general education settings are presented. Suggestions for future research and action are discussed. Keywords: inclusion, literacy, severe disabilities, extensive support needs, collaboration, research LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 3 Literacy Instruction in Inclusive Settings: A Call to Action Few skills affect as many aspects of modern life as literacy, making literacy one of the most important life skills to address for all students, including students with extensive support needs. Literacy, which includes listening, speaking, and interacting as well as reading, writing, and spelling, is a valued skill and fundamental human right for all people (Downing, 2007; Keefe & Copeland, 2011). Literacy enhances and creates opportunities for students to interact in their home, community, and school environments, as well as to engage within established adult roles, such as employment (Cihak, Wright, Smith, McMahon, & Kraiss, 2015; Ruppar, Afacan, Yang, & Pickett, 2017). In the past 40 years, legislation has promoted access to improved literacy instruction for all students in general education settings. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), mandates access to a free and appropriate public education for all students, including those with extensive support needs. Students with extensive support needs comprise the 1% of students with the most extensive needs for support who are eligible to complete their state’s alternate assessment, and historically have experienced limited access to quality literacy instruction (Downing, 2007). IDEA also requires education in the least restrictive environment with the supplementary aids and services necessary for all students to succeed. Additionally, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) and the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (Endrew F, 2017) require that all students make progress toward grade level standards and appropriately ambitious goals. Together, IDEA, ESSA, and Endrew F have compelled an increase in research on literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs. LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 4 While a base of research has emerged on effective literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs, this research has been conducted largely in separate self-contained special education classrooms, rather than in general education classrooms (Roberts, Leko, & Wilkerson, 2013). Thus, a significant gap exists between the empirical research and mandated services, with a resultant critical need to identify effective literacy instructional practices in general education settings for students with extensive support needs (IDEA, 2004; Kleinert et al., 2015; Sauer & Jorgensen, 2016). This persistent lack of research on literacy instruction in general education settings has left teacher preparation faculty, teachers, inclusive education advocates, and the research community with few evidence-based practices to recommend (Hudson & Browder, 2014; Ruppar et al., 2017). A strong base of research on literacy instruction in inclusive settings is urgently needed to provide the field of education with knowledge that can lead to quality literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs. This research is particularly needed with students who communicate nonverbally or through augmentative or alternative modes (Downing, 2005). The following call to action will first describe the existing research on literacy instruction conducted in separate self-contained and general education settings and then provide specific suggestions for future research. Literacy Instruction for Students with Extensive Support Needs: A Problematic Past Antiquated reading readiness and functional literacy approaches to education have been a barrier to quality literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs (Keefe & Copeland, 2011; Kliewer et al., 2004). These instructional approaches historically have precluded students from comprehensive literacy instruction until they master specific pre-reading skills (Afacan, Wilkerson, & Ruppar, 2018; Mirenda, 2003). The popularity of these instructional approaches has prevented children with extensive support needs from receiving LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 5 explicit instruction in the multiple areas of literacy (e.g., comprehension, phonics, vocabulary), as they often struggle to master so-called prerequisite skills, such as phonemic awareness (Afacan et al., 2018). Consequently, students with extensive support needs most often are provided instruction on “functional” literacy skills with a heavy focus on sight word and vocabulary related to activities of daily living and community safety (Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006; Kliewer et al., 2004). Such narrow, functional approaches to literacy instruction do not provide a learning environment rich in opportunities to engage with and communicate about text (Courtade, Lingo, & Whitney, 2013). Research on literacy instruction has demonstrated the inadequacy of the reading readiness and functional reading approaches, in that they fail to account for the breadth of literacy skills students with extensive support needs can learn when provided with quality comprehensive literacy instruction (Afacan et al., 2018). The National Reading Panel, a multi-disciplinary group created by the United States Congress to identify effective approaches to teaching reading to students, has identified five central components of reading instruction: phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). Based on their findings, a quality, comprehensive, literacy instructional program must include instruction in each of these components. Comprehensive literacy instruction integrates multiple components of literacy within meaningful instructional activities and interactions with text rather than isolated, single component skill instruction (Allor, Mathes, Roberts, & Champlin, 2010). From these findings, the emergent literacy perspective (Sénéchal, LeFevre, Smith-Chant, & Colton, 2001; Sulzby & Teale, 1985) and the importance of multi-component literacy instruction have become more prevalent, resulting in increased access to effective literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs (Afacan et al., 2018.; LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 6 Allor et al., 2010; Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Flowers, & Baker, 2012). Researchers examining emergent literacy have described how reading, writing, and speaking develop simultaneously and are influenced by the learner’s surroundings (Justice & Pullen, 2003). This constructivist learning approach has prompted the research community and teachers alike to create learning environments rich in text, writing, and language to provide students with more opportunities to develop strong literacy skills (Rohde, 2015; Sulzby & Teale, 1985). While the findings of the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) are not specifically directed toward reading instruction for students with extensive support needs, their recommendations frequently are referenced when describing literacy interventions for this population (e.g., Browder, Root, Wood, & Allison, 2017). Comprehensive literacy instruction for all students should include concurrent, systematic instruction in each of the literacy components identified by the National Reading Panel using evidence based instructional strategies (Allor et al., 2010). Some research-based literacy strategies for students with extensive support needs include: (a) time delay and systematic prompting (Browder et al., 2006), (b) shared story reading (Hudson & Test, 2011), (c) repeated reading (Hua et al., 2012), (d) graphic organizers (Browder et al., 2017), and (e) adapted age appropriate texts (Kurth & Keegan, 2014). Contemporary research has established support for multi-component literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs (Afacan et al., 2018). The Problem: Lack of Literacy Research Conducted in Inclusive Settings While research has identified the importance of comprehensive literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs (Allor et al., 2010; Browder et al., 2012), there remains a need to investigate its efficacy in general education settings (Afacan et al., 2018), given the LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION established benefits of inclusive education for students with extensive support needs. For example, researchers have associated inclusive education with: (a) higher learning expectations; (b) increased engagement, participation, social interactions, and access to general education curriculum; (c) and improved academic, communication, and social skills (Ruppar, Fisher, Olson, & Orlando, 2018; Sauer & Jorgensen, 2016). Inclusive service delivery also has been shown to improve adult outcomes, such as post-secondary education, employment and general independence (Ryndak, Alper, Hughes, & McDonnell, 2012). While some argue that a separate self-contained setting is necessary to provide effective individualized supports to students with extensive support needs (see Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; Kauffman & Bader, 2016), empirical research consistently has shown students with extensive support needs can acquire higher levels of academic skills, including literacy skills, in general education settings (de Graaf & van Hove, 2015; Dessemontet, Bless, & Morin, 2012). Additionally, students with extensive support needs served in general education settings are 10 times more likely to be exposed to academic literacy instruction than students in separate self-contained special education settings (Ruppar et al., 2018). Buckley, Bird, Sacks, and Archer (2006) conducted a comparative study of adolescents with Down syndrome taught in special education schools and in general education classrooms. Their findings indicate higher growth in expressive language and literacy skills for students educated in general education classes than those in special education schools. The demonstrated benefits of inclusive education on progress in literacy skills and access to instruction as well as instruction on the general education curriculum should be a significant prompt for increased research on literacy instruction in general education settings (Browder et. al. 2017; Mims, Hudson, & Browder, 2012). 7 LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 8 Responding to this need for improved research on inclusive instructional practices, researchers have identified strategies for implementing literacy instruction in general education settings. For example, embedded instruction (i.e., providing targeted instruction within the typical classroom routines) has been investigated to support literacy instruction in general education settings (see Johnson & McDonnell, 2004). Other research-based inclusive strategies include embedding (a) adapted general education materials to support acquisition and use of literacy skills (Copeland, Hughes, Agran, Wehmeyer, & Fowler, 2002), (b) shared story reading (Courtade et al., 2013), and (c) time delay (Ruppar et al., 2017). While research is beginning to inform teachers about embedding effective literacy instruction into general education settings for students with extensive support needs, a great deal more research is needed to firmly establish evidence-based practices. For this reason, we call on the research community to commit to the exploration of effective literacy instruction in general education settings for all students, especially for students with extensive support needs. A Call to Action Although research in the past several years has identified effective literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs, the setting of this research has remained primarily in selfcontained special education classrooms. Considering the positive impact of inclusive education on outcomes for students with extensive support needs, their need for effective literacy instruction, and the emerging strategies for teaching students with extensive support needs in general education settings, an urgent need exists to identify strategies for providing multicomponent literacy instruction to students with extensive support needs in general education settings. LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 9 We propose two broad research areas that need to be examined to generate a body of research on inclusive literacy instruction that is useful to practitioners. First, there is a need to expand on what we know already about effective and promising practices for promoting literacy skill acquisition for students with extensive support needs when they are in general education classes. Second and lastly, there is a need for a body of evidence on how teachers can plan for and design effective literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs in ways that are consistent with the themes, lessons, and activities occurring within general education classes. These are described in more detail within the subsequent sections. Building a Research Base for Inclusive Literacy Instruction Classroom Practices A synthesis of recent literature on effective literacy instruction for k-12 students with extensive support needs including a focus on instruction within general education settings is needed to provide the field with clear directions for future research by identifying evidencebased and promising practices as well as identifying gaps in the research. This literature review should identify the characteristics of effective literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs, including a description of the setting, variables such as instructional practices, interventionists, instructional content, student engagement, and student outcomes. The last published comprehensive review of literacy instructional strategies for K-12 students with extensive support needs was in 2006 (Browder et al.). While more recent literature reviews exist on specific instructional strategies and interventions (Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Spooner, Mims, & Baker, 2009; Hudson & Test, 2011), age groups (Copeland, McCord, & Kruger, 2016; Roberts et al., 2013), single components of literacy instruction (Hill, 2016; Joseph & Konrad, 2009), and multi-component literacy instruction (Afacan et al. 2018), a broad contemporary literature review would provide directions for future research by identifying: (a) instructional strategies LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 10 that have had promising results in general education settings and that need further research to be considered evidence-based and (b) instructional strategies that have not yet been investigated in general education settings. There is an urgent need to determine if, and how, evidence- or research-based practices determined to be effective in separate self-contained settings could be used or altered to be effective in general education settings. Such interventions might include: shared reading (Hudson & Test, 2011); prompting methods, such as time delay (Mims et al., 2012); modified general education texts (Mims et al., 2012; Roberts & Leko, 2013), task analysis for instruction (Browder, Lee, & Mims, 2011); and peer assisted learning (Carter, 2017; Mastropieri et al., 2001). While these and other instructional strategies have a research base that supports their implementation in separate self-contained settings, they might need to be adapted to be effective in general education environments. The extent of such adaptations is not clear, however, without research occurring in general education settings. It is particularly important that future research on literacy instruction in general education settings include students with extensive support needs who also have complex communication needs. Students with complex communication needs are students who communicate nonverbally or through the use of high-tech, low-tech, or no-tech augmentative and alternative communication devices (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013; Orlando & Scherba de Valenzuela, 2018). This group of students is at increased risk of being educated in separate self-contained settings and denied access to comprehensive literacy instruction, with teachers reporting that they lack the knowledge necessary to make general education literacy content accessible to their students with more intensive communication support needs (Machalicek et al., 2010; Ruppar, Dymond, & Gaffney, 2011). Barriers to inclusive literacy instruction for students with extensive LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 11 support needs who have complex communication needs may be addressed by increasing the knowledge of effective literacy instruction practices for this population through high-quality research (Downing, 2005; Zascavage & Keefe, 2004). Building a Research Base for Planning and Preparation for Inclusive Literacy Instruction Efficient planning and preparation for literacy instruction in general education is required to provide guidance for teachers who are struggling to implement literacy instruction in general education settings that include students with extensive support needs. Barriers that special education teachers have shared include the lack of time, willingness, and knowledge to collaborate for, plan, and prepare materials for effective literacy instruction in general education settings (Matzen, Ryndak, & Nakao, 2010; Roberts et al., 2013; Ruppar et al., 2011). Research is needed to systematically investigate and address each of these identified barriers. The importance of general and special education teacher collaboration has been documented (Agran, Alper, & Wehmeyer, 2002; Leko, Brownell, Sindelar, & Kiely, 2015). However, there are few systematic studies that investigate collaborative planning and material preparation strategies (Kurth & Keegan, 2014; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2001). Research addressing these barriers might promote planning and preparation strategies that facilitate multi-component literacy instruction in general education settings. There is also a need for research implemented by teachers rather than researchers to ensure that an intervention could be easily implemented by a typical special or general educator. Teacher-implemented research would support efforts to ensure interventions have social validity, assuring that teachers feel they have the time and resources to prepare for and implement specific multi-component literacy instruction in general education settings for students with extensive support needs. While research on multi-component literacy interventions that are implemented LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 12 by teachers with the presence of a researcher for data collection are vulnerable to teacher adaptation (i.e., the Hawthorn Effect; Ledford, Lane, & Gast, 2018), researchers can minimize the effect of an outside research team on student and teacher behavior by promoting school staff as primary interventionists and data collectors. Such designs would be a true test of the social validity of interventions and support teachers to engage in data collection that drives their instruction. Conclusion This call to action highlights areas of research that are needed to improve knowledge about literacy instruction in general education settings for students with extensive support needs. It is imperative that the research community identify evidence-based methods for embedding multi-component literacy instruction in general education settings for students with extensive support needs and that this research is embedded in both pre- and in-service teacher development efforts if we are to ensure the provision of efficacious literacy instruction for all students. LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 13 References Afacan, K., Wilkerson, K. L., & Ruppar, A. L. (2018). Multicomponent reading interventions for students with intellectual disability. Remedial and Special Education, 39, 229242. doi:10.1177/0741932517702444 Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123-133. Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Jones, F. G., & Champlin, T. M. (2010). Teaching students with moderate intellectual disabilities to read: An experimental examination of a comprehensive reading intervention. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 3-22. Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., & Baker, J. (2012). An evaluation of a multicomponent early literacy program for students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 237-246. doi:10.1177/0741932510387305 Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Spooner, F., Mims, P. J., & Baker, J. N. (2009). Using time delay to teach literacy to students with severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 343-364. doi:10.1177/001440290907500305 Browder, D. M., Lee, A., & Mims, P. (2011). Using shared stories and individual response modes to promote comprehension and engagement in literacy for students with multiple, LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 14 severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 339-351. Browder, D. M., Root, J. R., Wood, L., & Allison, C. (2017). Effects of a story-mapping procedure using the iPad on the comprehension of narrative texts by students with autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 32, 243-255. doi:10.1177/1088357615611387 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, 392-408. doi:10.1177/001440290607200401 Buckley S., Bird G., Sacks B. & Archer A. (2006) A comparison of mainstream and special education for teenagers with Down syndrome: Implications for parents and teachers. Down Syndrome Research and Practice 9, 54–67. doi:10.3104/reports.295 Carter, E. W. (2017). The promise and practice of peer support arrangements for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities, 52, 141-174. doi:10.1016/bs.irrdd.2017.04.001 Cihak, D. F., Wright, R., Smith, C. C., McMahon, D., & Kraiss, K. (2015). Incorporating functional digital literacy skills as part of the curriculum for high school students with intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 155-171. Copeland, S. R., Hughes, C., Agran, M., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Fowler, S. E. (2002). An intervention package to support high school students with mental retardation in general education classrooms. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107, 32-45. doi:10.1352/0895-8017(2002)107<0032:AIPTSH>2.0.CO;2 LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 15 Copeland, S. R., McCord, J. A., & Kruger, A. (2016). A review of literacy interventions for adults with extensive needs for supports. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60, 173-184. doi:10.1002/jaal.548 Courtade, G. R., Lingo, A. S., & Whitney, T. (2013). Using story-based lessons to increase academic engaged time in general education classes for students with moderate intellectual disability and autism. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 32, 3-14. doi:10.1177/875687051303200402 de Graaf, G., & Van Hove, G. (2015). Learning to read in regular and special schools: A follow up study of students with Down Syndrome. Life Span and Disability, 18, 7-39. Dessemontet, R. S., Bless, G., & Morin, D. (2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic achievement and adaptive behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 579-587. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01497.x Downing, J. E. (2005). Inclusive education for high school students with severe intellectual disabilities: Supporting communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 132-148. doi:10.1080/07434610500103582 Downing, J. E. (2007). Teaching literacy to students with significant disabilities strategies for the K-12 inclusive classroom. Vancouver, Canada: Langara College. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016). Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294–309. doi:10.1177/ 001440299406000402 Hill, D. R. (2016). Phonics based reading interventions for students with intellectual disability: A LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 16 systematic literature review. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4, 205-214. doi:10.11114/jets.v4i5.1472 Hua, Y., Hendrickson, J. M., Therrien, W. J., Woods-Groves, S., Ries, P. S., & Shaw, J. J. (2012). Effects of combined reading and question generation on reading fluency and comprehension of three young adults with autism and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 27, 135-146. doi:10.1177/1088357612448421 Hudson, M. E., & Browder, D. M. (2014). Improving listening comprehension responses for students with moderate intellectual disability during literacy class. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39, 11–29. doi:10.1177/1540796914534634 Hudson, M. E., & Test, D. W. (2011). Evaluating the evidence base of shared story reading to promote literacy for students with extensive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 34-45. doi:10.2511/rpsd.36.1-2.34 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U, S, C, § 1400 et seq. (2004). Johnson, J. W., & McDonnell, J. (2004). An exploratory study of the implementation of embedded instruction by general educators with students with developmental disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 46-63. Joseph, L. M., & Konrad, M. (2009). Teaching students with intellectual or developmental disabilities to write: A review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1-19. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2008.01.001 Justice, L. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2003). Promising interventions for promoting emergent literacy skills: Three evidence-based approaches. Teaching Early Childhood Special Education, LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 17 23, 99–113. doi:10.1177/02711214030230030101 Kauffman, J. M., & Badar, J. (2016). It’s instruction over place—not the other way around!. Phi Delta Kappan, 98, 55-59. doi:10.1177/0031721716681778 Keefe, E. B., & Copeland, S. R. (2011). What is literacy? The power of a definition. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 92-99. doi:10.2511/027494811800824507 Kleinert, H., Towles-Reeves, E., Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., Fluegge, L., Weseman, L., & Kerbel, A. (2015). Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught implications for general curriculum access. Exceptional Children, 81, 312-328. doi:10.1177/0014402914563697. Kliewer, C., Fitzgerald, L. M., Meyer-Mork, J., Hartman, P., English-Sand, P., & Raschke, D. (2004). Citizenship for all in the literate community: An ethnography of young children with significant disabilities in inclusive early childhood settings. Harvard Educational Review, 74, 373-403. doi:10.17763/haer.74.4.p46171013714642x Kurth, J. A., & Keegan, L. (2014). Development and use of curricular adaptations for students receiving special education services. The Journal of Special Education, 48, 191-203. doi:10.1177/0022466912464782 Ledford, J. R., Lane, J. D., & Gast, D. L. (2018). Dependent variables, measurement, and reliability. In J. R. Ledord & D. L. Gast (Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed., pp. 97-131). New York, NY: Routledge. LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 18 Leko, M. M., Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., & Kiely, M. T. (2015). Envisioning the future of special education personnel preparation in a standards-based era. Exceptional Children, 82, 25-43. doi:10.1177/0014402915598782 Machalicek, W., Sanford, A., Lang, R., Rispoli, M., Molfenter, N., & Mbeseha, M. K. (2010). Literacy interventions for students with physical and developmental disabilities who use aided AAC devices: A systematic review. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 22, 219-240. doi:10.1007/s10882-009-9175-3 Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2001). Promoting inclusion in secondary classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 265-274. doi:10.2307/1511115 Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Mohler, L., Beranek, M., Boon, R., Spencer, V., & Talbott, E. (2001). Can middle school students with serious reading difficulties help each other and learn anything? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 18-27. doi:10.1111/0938-8982.00003 Matzen, K., Ryndak, D., & Nakao, T. (2010). Middle school teams increasing access to general education for students with significant disabilities: Issues encountered and activities observed across contexts. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 287-304. doi:10.1177/0741932508327457 Mims, P. J., Hudson, M. E., & Browder, D. M. (2012). Using read-alouds of grade-level biographies and systematic prompting to promote comprehension for students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 27, 67-80. doi:10.1177/1088357612446859 Mirenda, P. (2003). “He's not really a reader…”: Perspectives on supporting literacy development in individuals with autism. Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 271-282. LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 19 doi:10.1097/00011363-200310000-00003 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: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from NICHD website: https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf Orlando, A., & Scherba de Valenzuela, J. (2018). Developing language and communication. In S. R. Copeland & E. B. Keefe (Eds.), Effective literacy instruction for learners with complex support needs (2nd ed., pp. 21-34). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Roberts, C. A., & Leko, M. M. (2013). Integrating functional and academic goals into literacy instruction for adolescents with significant cognitive disabilities through shared story reading. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38, 157-172. doi: 10.1177/154079691303800303 Roberts, C. A., Leko, M. M., & Wilkerson, K. L. (2013). New directions in reading instruction for adolescents with significant cognitive disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 305-317. doi:10.1177/0741932513485447 Rohde, L. (2015). The comprehensive emergent literacy model: Early literacy in context. SAGE Open, 5, 1-11. doi:10.1177/2158244015577664. Ruppar, A. L., Afacan, K., Yang, Y., & Pickett, K. J. (2017). Embedded shared reading to increase literacy in an inclusive English/language arts class: Preliminary efficacy and ecological validity. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 52, 51-63. LITERACY INSTRUCTION: A CALL TO ACTION 20 Ruppar, A. L., Dymond, S. K., & Gaffney, J. S. (2011). Teachers' perspectives on literacy instruction for students with severe disabilities who use augmentative and alternative communication. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 100111. doi:10.2511/027494811800824435 Ruppar, A., Fisher, K. W., Olson, A. J., & Orlando, A. M. (2018). Exposure to literacy for students eligible for the alternate assessment. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 53, 192-208. Ryndak, D. L., Alper, S., Hughes, C., & McDonnell, J. (2012). Documenting impact of educational contexts on long-term outcomes for students with significant disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 127-138. Sauer, J., & Jorgensen, C. M. (2016). Still caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of least restrictive environment and its effect on placement of students with intellectual disability. Inclusion, 4, 56-74. doi:10.1352/2326-6988-4.2.56 Sénéchal, M., LeFevre, J. A., Smith-Chant, B. L., & Colton, K. V. (2001). On refining theoretical models of emergent literacy the role of empirical evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 439-460. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00081-4 Sulzby, E. & Teale, W. H. (1985). Writing development in early childhood. Educational Horizons, 64, 8-12. Zascavage, V. T., & Keefe, C. H. (2004). Students with severe speech and physical impairments: Opportunity barriers to literacy. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19, 223-234. doi:10.1177/10883576040190040401