Preparing Interns to teach
Emergent Literacy and SelfCare Skills to Students with
Significant Intellectual
Disabilities in Inclusive
Reading Groups
OSEP Project Director’s Conference
Washington, DC 2012
Karena Cooper-Duffy, PhD.
Glenda Hyer, MAT
Western Carolina University
Issues Special Education Teachers Face
when Teaching Students with Significant
Intellectual Disabilities.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Required to teach general curriculum to students
with significant intellectual disabilities.
Required to teach personal care skills like hand
washing.
Not sure of the best approach to teach academics
like literacy to students with significant
intellectual disabilites.
Not sure of how to link the academic content to
the Standard Course of Study.
There are multiple grade levels of students in
self-contained classes. Teachers need to teach all
grades with all adaptations.
Extension of …
Browder, D., Mims, P., Spooner, F., AhlgrimDelzell, L., & Lee, A. (2009). Teaching elementary
students with multiple disabilities to participate
in shared stories. Research & Practices for
Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33, 3-12.
Retrieved May 22, 2009 from Academic Search
Complete database.
Browder, D. Trela, K. & Jimenez, B. (2007).
Training teachers to follow a task analysis to
engage middle school students with moderate
and severe developmental disabilities in gradeappropriate literature. Focus on Autism and
Other Development Disabilities, 22, 206-219.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to examine the
effects of story-based instruction on both the
emergent literacy skills and hand washing skills
with elementary students with significant
intellectual disabilities.
Research Questions
Intern Behavior
1.
What is the effect of using a multi-component
teacher-training package on interns who are
teaching emergent literacy skills to students
with significant intellectual disabilities during
an inclusive group reading activity?
2. What is the effect of using a multi-component
teacher-training package on interns who are
teaching hand washing skills to students who
have significant intellectual disabilities?
Research Questions
Student Behavior
3. What is the effect of story-based instruction and
systematic instruction on emergent literacy
responses of students with significant intellectual
disabilities during an inclusive group reading
activity?
4. What is the effect of story-based instruction and
systematic instruction on hand washing responses
of students with significant intellectual
disabilities?
Research Questions Generalization
5. Were elementary students with significant
intellectual disabilities able to generalize
emergent literacy skills across untrained
books?
6. Were the interns able to generalize emergent
literacy instruction across students with
significant intellectual disabilities during an
inclusive group reading activity?
7. Were the interns able to generalize hand
washing instruction across students who have
significant intellectual disabilities?
RESEARCH
SETTING
Setting

Three public elementary school located in three
counties of Western North Carolina participated
in this study.

Three self-contained classrooms with students K
– 2nd grade.

Three general education classes K – 2.

A table within the classroom to form an inclusive
reading groups.
Setting for Participants and Research
Phases
STUDENT WITH DISABILITY
PEER FROM GENERAL
EDUCATION
PEER FROM
GENERAL EDUCTION
TABLE
INTERN
CAMERA
HAND WASHING SETTING

Sink with turning faucets

A step-stool for students to reach the sink if
necessary

Paper towel dispenser

Trash can

Pump soap
PARTICIPANTS
Participants-Interns
First year interns from Western Carolina University
participated in the study. To be eligible for the study
the three interns needed to:
1. be students who were working towards obtaining
a Bachelors degree in Special Education at
Western Carolina University.
2. be completing internship in a public school
classroom serving students with significant
intellectual disabilities.
3. have no previous experience teaching literacy
using story-based instruction.
4. have no previous experience teaching hand
washing using systematic instruction.
Participants:
Students with Intellectual Disabilities
The students with significant intellectual disabilities were
elementary students between the ages of 5 and 8 years of age
who were taught in self-contained classrooms. The eligibility
requirements for this study included the following:
1. have adequate vision and hearing.
2. demonstrate the ability to attend to a group setting for 15
minutes.
3. have the physical ability to demonstrate hand washing
behaviors.
4. inconsistent responses or communicative attempts during
literacy instruction.
5. primary language is English.
6. are nonverbal and communicates with gestures and or
Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC).
General Education Students
Three general education teachers identified four readers
without disabilities from their general education
classrooms who met the following requirements: (a) are
on the same grade level as the student with significant
intellectual disabilities, (b) would benefit from
additional reading practice in a small group format, (c)
could model emergent literacy skills to the student with
significant intellectual disabilities, and (d) could leave
the general education setting for a thirty to forty minute
session three times per week. A total of twelve general
education readers who could model emergent literacy
skills were needed for this study.
NO DATA WAS TAKEN ON THE GENERAL EDUCATION STUDENT
MATERIALS:
LITERACY KIT
Literacy Kit
The interns were given identical literacy kits.
The literacy kits included the following:
 4 copies of 3 different books about
handwashing
 2 hand washing strips
 3 vocabulary sheets
 3 comprehension sheets
 Bubbles for attention getter
 AAC devices appropriate for students
Baseline
Baseline
Each intern worked with the cooperating
special education teacher to identify two
students with significant intellectual
disabilities who met the requirements of the
study.
 The special education teacher and intern
worked with the general education teachers
to identify twelve students from the general
education classrooms who would benefit
from participating in small reading groups
and who could demonstrate emergent
literacy skills.

Baseline Continued…

Each reading group contained one
student with significant intellectual
disabilities and 2 students without
disabilities from general education. The
three children in each of the reading
groups were in the same grade.

Each intern had two small reading
groups (one intervention group and one
generalization group). A total of six
groups were formed for this study.
Baseline Continued…

The small reading groups met at a table within
the special education classroom three times per
week.

At baseline, the interns were individual given
the literacy kit and instructed to teach a literacy
lesson using their current method of literacy
instruction and any of the content of the
literacy kit. The literacy kit did not include the
Teacher and Student Task analysis.

After reading the book, the interns were
instructed to ask the students with significant
intellectual disabilities to “go wash their hands”
and then to teach hand washing using their
current hand washing instructional method.
Baseline Continued…

The intern rotated the books each week, so all
of the books were read at least once to the
students.

The researcher and data collector used the
Teacher and Student Story-based Task
Analysis and Teacher and Student Hand
Washing Task Analysis to collect data on both
the intern and student.

All sessions were videotaped

No feedback was given during baseline.
Intern Training
Intern Training
The intern training occurred in a classroom and
bathroom at the University.
 The interns were individually invited by the
research to participate in teacher training (based
on baseline and phases).
 The interns were individually trained by the
researcher.
 Training was approximately two hours in length.
 The intern was instructed to bring their literacy
box and AAC device.

Intern Training Continued..

At the beginning of training, the intern was
given a training manual and copies of the
Teacher and Student Story-based Task Analysis
and Hand Washing Task analysis.

The training included the intern, the researcher
and a data collector.

Data was collected on intern training by the data
collector, researcher and intern for the purpose
of procedural fidelity.
Intern Training Continued..

The manual had a task analysis of the training
sequence to ensure the researcher and intern did
not skip a step or complete a step incorrectly.

The manual was designed to provide consistent
and comprehensive training on how to use storybased instruction to teach emergent literacy
skills to students with significant intellectual
disabilities.

In addition, the manual provided instruction on
how to use least to most prompting procedures to
teach the personal care skill of hand washing.
Intern Training Continued…
The training manual was divided into six
components:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
materials
story-based Instruction
data collection for story-based instruction
systematic instruction to teach hand washing
data collection on hand washing instruction
teaching both story-based instruction and
hand washing.
Intern Training Continued…
At the bottom of each page of the training
manual was a task analysis. The intern was
asked to read the task and circle yes if the
researcher reviewed/completed the task or
circle no if the researcher did not review or
complete the task. The task analysis that
was embedded into the teacher training
manual was also completed by researcher
and data collector every time a intern went
through the training session. The task
analysis data was compared for procedural
fidelity.
Intern Training Continued..





The setting was the same for teacher training as it
was baseline and intervention (table arrangement).
The research thoroughly discussed each of the six
components.
The research demonstrated story-based
instruction through role-play.
The Intern acting as the student and researcher
acting as the intern practiced using the task
analysis to teach emergent literacy skills, then
roles were reversed (feedback).
The intern was required to reach 90% on the
Teacher and Student Story-based Task Analysis
before moving on to handwashing.
Intern Training Continued..



The Intern acting as the student and researcher
acting as the intern practiced using least to most
prompting procedures to teach handwashing, then
roles were reversed.
The intern was required to reach 90% on the
Teacher and Student Hand Washing Task Analysis
before demonstrating both the story-based and
hand washing lesson together.
The intern was given 10 minutes to set up the
story-based lesson using book 1. The researcher
role played a student with a disability. The intern
was required to reach 90% on both the Teacher
and Student Story-based and Hand Washing task
analysis before training would be complete.
Intern Training Continued..

After the intern reached criterion for training,
she was given a book with both story-based
and hand washing task analysis.

The researcher instructed the intern to only
read book one and wait for the researcher to
ask before moving on to book 2 or 3.

Procedural Fidelity was calculated at 100%
Intervention
Intervention

The intern used the same materials, setting
and students as in the baseline condition.

The intern used The Teacher and Student
Story-based Task Analysis to prompt students
to read a book and demonstrate emergent
literacy skills.

The intern provided the students feedback
and prompting as identified in the task
analysis (see task analysis).
Intervention

After completing the story-based lesson, the
interns provided the student with significant
intellectual disabilities a prompt of “go wash
your hands”.

The intern used the Teacher and Student Hand
Washing Task Analysis and least to most
prompting system to teach hand washing.
Design

Multiple baseline design across participants was used
to demonstrate experimental control.

All students started in baseline until all students
showed a stable baseline. The first student was
provided the intervention, while the others stayed in
baseline. Once the first student reached 70% mastery
on the story based task analysis, all remaining students
in baseline were probed to ensure a stable baseline.
Then the next student received the intervention. This
continued until all students received the intervention.

After a student demonstrated 70% mastery in one book,
they were then given a second book along with the
same intervention. Generalization across books
occurred with the 2 novel books on handwashing.
Data Collector Training



The researcher explained and reviewed with the
data collector the importance of teaching
Emergent Literacy to students with significant
intellectual disabilities.
The researcher explained and reviewed the
Teacher and Student Story-based Instruction
Task Analysis and Datasheets and Teacher and
Student Story-based Hand Washing Task Analysis
and Datasheets .
The researcher demonstrated both correct and
incorrect behaviors of the teacher and student on
the Teacher and Student Story-based Instruction
Task Analysis and Datasheets and Teacher and
Student Story-based Hand Washing Task Analysis
and Datasheets.
Data Collector Training

The researcher and the data collector watch a
video about story-based instruction and hand
washing instruction and score the behaviors
together using the Teacher and Student
Story-based Instruction Task Analysis and
Datasheets and Teacher and Student Storybased Hand Washing Task Analysis and
Datasheets. The researcher provided the data
collector feedback on each behavior during
the video.
Data Collector Training

The researcher and data collector a watch a video about
story-based instruction and hand washing, and score
separately the behaviors using the Teacher and Student
Story-based Instruction Task Analysis and Datasheets
and Teacher and Student Story-based Hand Washing
Task Analysis and Datasheets . After scoring, the
researcher and data collector score the datasheets for
interrater reliability.

The researcher and data collector continue watching and
scoring videos of story based instruction and hand
washing instruction using the Teacher and Student
Story-based Instruction Task Analysis and Datasheets
and Teacher and Student Story-based Hand Washing
Task Analysis and Datasheets until they reach a score of
90% interrater reliability.
Reliability Score (Interns)
• The mean interrater reliability score for
interns prompting of emergent literacy were
99% accuracy across all phases.
• The mean interrater scores for the interns
prompting of hand washing responses were
98% accuracy across all phases.
Reliability Score (Students)

The mean interrater scores for the
students with significant intellectual
disabilities correct and independent
emergent literacy responses were 97%
accuracy across all phases.

The mean interrater scores for the
students with significant intellectual
disabilities correct and independent hand
washing responses were 96% across all
phases.
Reliability Score
(Intern Generalization)

The mean interrater scores of the
interns prompting of emergent literacy
skills across untrained students with
significant intellectual disabilities were
99% across all phases

The mean interrater reliability scores for
the interns prompting of hand washing
skills across untrained students with
significant intellectual disabilities were
99% across all phases
Reliability Score
(Student Generalization)

The mean interrater scores for the
untrained students with significant
intellectual disabilities correct and
independent emergent literacy responses
were 98% across all phases.

The mean interrater scores for students
with significant intellectual disabilities
correct and independent hand washing
responses were 98% across all phases.
DISCUSSION
Discussion (Intern Behavior)

All three interns demonstrated near zero rates of
correct story based instruction with students
with significant intellectual disabilities.

After instruction, all 3 interns demonstrated
100% mastery at implementing story based
instruction to both a trained student and an
untrained student (generalization).
Discussion: (Intern Behavior)

During baseline, all 3 interns demonstrated near
zero rates of correct systematic instruction
during hand washing.

After the intervention, all 3 interns
demonstrated 100% mastery for implementing
systematic instruction on hand washing.

Multi-component training package was effective
in preparing the interns to instruct the students
with significant intellectual disabilities on
emergent literacy and hand washing skills.
Discussion:
Students with Significant
Intellectual Disabilities

All 3 students demonstrated near zero
independent and correct responses in the
baseline condition for emergent literacy skills.

After intervention on story-based instruction, 3
students showed mastery in emergent literacy
skills.

The story-based instruction was effective for
teaching the students emergent literacy skills.
Discussion: Hand Washing

All 3 students demonstrated about 30%
independent and correct hand washing skills
during baseline.

All 3 students showed mastery in handwashing
after reading the first story on hand washing and
practicing washing their hands with the system of
least prompts.

The combined story-based instruction and
systematic instruction was effective in teaching
hand washing.
Generalization

Two interns were able to generalize their skills for both
story-based instruction and systematic instruction across
one novel child. One of the interns did not have a
generalization student.

One generalization student was able to generalize the skill
of emergent literacy skills and hand washing skills across
3 different stories on how to wash your hands. The second
generalization student was making progress but had not
reached mastery.

One generalization student showed mastery in
handwashing after reading the first story on hand washing
and practiced washing her hands with the system of least
prompts. The second generalization student was making
progress but had not reach mastery.
Significance of the Study

This study will add to the research on how to
teach students with significant intellectual
disabilities comprehensive literacy skills that link
to the Standard Course of Study.

This study will respond to the limited research in
the area of story-based instruction on teaching
both emergent literacy skills and the functional
daily living skills for students with significant
intellectual disabilities.
Significance of the Study
continued….

It will offer a way of teaching age appropriate
academic skills that link to the Standard Course
of Study while working on necessary functional
daily living skills.

The study could lead to the development of
curriculum that provides a means for educators
to know how to teach both emergent literacy
skills that are linked to the Standard Course of
Study and crucial functional skills to students
with significant intellectual disabilities.
References
Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. Courtade, O., Gibbs, S., & Flowers, C.
(2008). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an early literacy program for
students with significant develop mental Disabilities. Exceptional Children,
75(1), 33-52. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from Academic Search Complete
database.
Browder, D., Mims, P., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Lee, A. (2009).
Teaching elementary students with multiple disabilities to participate in
shared stories. Research & Practices for Persons with Severe Disabilities,
33, 3-12. Retrieved May 22, 2009 from Academic Search Complete
database.
Browder, D. Trela, K. & Jimenez, B. (2007). Training teachers to follow a task
analysis to engage middle school students with moderate and severe
developmental disabilities in grade-appropriate literature. Focus on Autism
and Other Development Disabilities, 22, 206-219.
Cooper-Duffy, K., Szedja, P. & Hyer, G. (2010). Teaching literacy to students
with cognitive disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children 43(3).
Fry, E. (1977). Fry’s readability graph: Clarification, validity and extension to
level 17. Journal of Reading. 21, 242-252.
Questions and Emails
Karena Cooper-Duffy
kcooper@email.wcu.edu

Glenda Hyer
glhyer1@email.wcu.edu
