Supporting Literacy Learning for Children with Autism
Stanley L. Swartz
California State University
Introduction
Communication is one of the defining problems in autism. Many children with
autism do not develop verbal language and communicating their needs is an ongoing
challenge. Alternative systems of communication are frequently employed to provide
support for children’s communication attempts. Similarly, literacy is
often slow to develop or absent in many children with autism.
Given the many social, behavioral and communication needs of these children,
literacy learning can, in many cases, be assigned lower priority as an educational
objective. The training of special education teachers reflects this priority
with more training in behavior modification and behavior management than in
teaching children to read and write.
The Reading Process
Reading is a cognitive process. Basic to the process is the understanding that
what can be said can be written down and then read again by the writer or by
someone else. Once students grasp this basic concept, they must acquire an understanding
of print (the code by which speech is represented as visual information) and
the skills to decipher the code and turn it back into speech. In English, this
visual information is composed of the letters of the alphabet, arranged in systematic
patterns and clusters to spell words. Each letter has its own distinctive visual
features, and each letter stands for one or more sounds by itself or in combination
with other letters. Beginning readers need to learn to associate letters with
sounds in order to access the information represented by print and comprehend
the intended message. Comprehending the author’s message is the goal of
reading. Readers, at all levels, bring their own knowledge and experience to
the task of reading and comprehending what is read. Oral language and background
knowledge are important resources that readers use to decode print and make
sense of the message.
What Research Tells Us About Teaching Students To Read
There is a considerable body of scientific research that identifies effective
ways to teach students how to read (National Reading Panel, 2001). Five areas
of instruction have been identified that are critical elements to success in
teaching reading.
Phonemic Awareness
Phonemic awareness is the ability to notice, think about, and work with individual
sounds in spoken words. Before you become a reader you must be aware of the
sounds that are in words. Readers understand that written words can be spoken
and that they use phonemes or particular speech sounds when they read a word.
Phonics
Phonics is the relationship between the sounds of the spoken language (phonemes)
and the
letters of the written language (graphemes). Phonics is a system for remembering
how to read words. The letters of the alphabet and their corresponding sounds
when placed in memory are used to decode words.
Fluency
Fluency is the ability to read a text accurately and quickly. Fluent readers
decode automatically and therefore are able to concentrate their attention on
the meaning of the text. Fluent readers recognize and comprehend words at the
same time.
Vocabulary
Vocabulary is the words we know and need to communicate. Oral vocabulary is
the words we use when speaking and reading vocabulary is the words we can read
in print. Reading text with meaning relies on the words used being part of the
vocabulary of the reader. A reader needs to know most of the words that are
read to comprehend the text. Understanding phonics and using these skills to
decode text is not helpful if the word decoded by students is not a word in
their vocabulary or the meaning of the word can't be determined by context.
Text Comprehension
The purpose of reading is to understand what is read. Comprehension is the ability
to take meaning from text and remember and communicate the meaning from the
text. Good readers are those that monitor their comprehension to make sure they
understand the text.
Autism and Literacy Learning Needs
To identify effective ways to support literacy learning for children with autism,
consideration must be given to the reading process and to teaching methods that
are flexible enough to accommodate individual characteristics. Because autism
is a spectrum disorder it is difficult to develop a particular set of learning
characteristics and a specific method that will meet instructional needs. Teachers
that use prescriptive teaching methods or systems might find these too inflexible
for the accommodations needed for use with children with autism. Teaching methods
in literacy learning that can be readily modified to meet the individual needs
of children and give wide discretion to teacher decision-making are more likely
to be successful.
Growth in reading is closely tied to levels of oral language. This frequent
deficit in children with autism requires increased attention to background knowledge
and oral language levels. Some teaching methods used in special education approach
reading as a set of skills that are prerequisite to the actual reading of text.
Many of the practice exercises used to learn these skills are taught in isolation.
The opportunity to connect this information to the child’s background
knowledge is limited in this kind of approach. Having children read text using
all of their current skills, regardless of the level, is considered essential
to both comprehension and enjoyment of reading. Assessment of progress needs
to be frequent and should measure specific skill
development in addition to overall reading level. These data can inform teaching
to ensure that it is specific to the needs of the child.
Two Promising Teaching Methods
Two methods to support literacy learning were examined. Reading Recovery (Clay,
1979; 1985) was used as an individual intervention, and Guided Reading (Swartz,
Shook, & Klein, 2003a) was used both in individual and small group applications.
These two methods were selected based on numerous criteria. Reading Recovery
is a widely disseminated early literacy intervention project and has a significant
research base. Though designed for first graders, the procedures have been used
with other groups on an experimental basis. Guided Reading is a key teaching
method employed in professional development provided by the Foundation for California
Early Literacy Learning (Swartz, Shook, & Klein, 2003b). This project uses
a
collaborative teaching model where regular and special teachers use the same
teaching methods. The data in Table 1 show a decrease in special education referrals
in those schools using Reading Recovery. This effect size was increased in schools
where teachers were trained to use Guided Reading.
Table 2 summarizes reading level increases for special education students with mild disabilities who were having difficulty or making slow progress in reading. These students were all third graders and participated in a daily Guided Reading lesson over a six month period. The Guided Reading group was inclusive with both special needs and regular children in the same group. All children increased in reading level and group results were significant.
These results and the anecdotal reports of teachers using both
methods with special populations were sufficiently positive to use Reading Recovery
and Guided Reading on an experimental basis with children with autism.
Reading Recovery
Reading Recovery is an early intervention program designed to assist children
in first grade who are having difficulty learning to read and write. Reading
Recovery uses supportive conversations between teacher and child as the primary
basis of instruction. The Reading Recovery lesson follows a framework of activities
that is individually designed based on a daily analysis of student progress.
Each lesson has seven distinct parts; 1) rereading of several familiar books,
2) assessment of reading behaviors on a book used in the prior lesson, 3) letter
identification and word work, 4) writing a story emphasizing the use of phonics,
5) rearranging of this story from a cut-up sentence strip, 6) teacher introduces
a new book selected for specific learning opportunities, and 7) reading a new
book using problem solving strategies with teacher support. This routine is
managed in a 30 minute daily lesson for a period that ranges from 12 to 20 weeks
(Swartz & Klein, 1997). Reading Recovery typically reports a success rate
in excess of 75%. Success is defined as reaching and staying at grade level
without the need for further intervention.
Reading Recovery is a one-to-one tutorial where children are pulled out of the
regular classroom to receive this service. Teachers serve a maximum of four
students per day. Reading Recovery teachers receive intense training in the
teaching procedures and are expected to follow these procedures closely. Data
for use of these procedures with special needs populations are limited.
Method
Participants
Three students enrolled in a university clinic social and behavior program for
children with autism were selected using two criteria. Students were judged
to be high functioning by initial referral evaluations and reported by parents
to have initial skill and interest in reading. Literacy skills were confirmed
using the Observation Survey (Clay, 1993) that also served as the pre-test.
Procedures
Students received a modified form of Reading Recovery. Individual lessons were
provided in two, one hour sessions per week over a period of nine months. This
modification of daily lessons and time period was made to accommodate the attendance
schedule for the clinic program in which students were enrolled. The students
selected were not first graders as required by regular Reading Recovery procedures.
The three students were ages 5.9, 6.3, and 7.9.
Results
Students were assessed both pre and post with the Observation Survey. This test
is composed of six measures of reading and writing; 1) letter identification
of the 54 different upper and lower case letters plus print versions of a and
g, 2) word test where the child is asked to read from a list of 20 high frequency
words, 3) the child is asked to demonstrate an understanding of concepts about
print, 4) writing vocabulary test where the child is asked to write all of the
words he knows, 5) dictation test that measures analyzing words for sounds,
and 6) text reading level with accuracy of 90 percent. Table 3 summarizes the
pre and post test results.
All three participants showed gains on the five skill subtests.
Participant 1 knew most of the letters of the alphabet but was unable to use
any of this information in applied tasks. On all measures, Participant 1 reached
grade level after the treatment period. Participant 2 had the most initial skill
knowledge and made slow but encouraging progress in text reading level. Participant
3 also made good progress in initial skills in four subtests beginning with
a pretest score of zero. Participant 1 was the most cooperative, Participant
2 was the most difficult to keep on task, and Participant 3 had the lowest amount
of oral language. These variables are considered important in the success of
the treatment.
The Observation Survey uses text reading levels based on gradients of difficulty.
These can be translated roughly into more traditional grade level equivalents.
However, since grade levels are very wide, measuring daily or weekly progress
using these gradients are more useful for the purposes of modifying instruction.
Samples of text at the text reading levels measured for the participants are
included. Text level A and B are established in the first sample with an A if
the child cannot read the no, no, no response and B if the child can read this
three word sequence. Level 3 text is a sentence with simple construction but
one that uses varying vocabulary. Level 14 text is quite complex and requires
the child to read various sentence structures.
Text Level A, B (Hill, Where’s Spot? 1980)
Text Level 3 (Swartz, In My Garden, 1994)
Text Level 14 (Swartz, The Clock that Couldn’t Tell Time, 1995)
Discussion
Each of the students received typical, special education services but had made
no gains in reading. The impact of Reading Recovery on these participants was
powerful and produced notable achievement gains for each child. The modified
procedures were essential to the delivery of these services to children with
autism. Teachers were carefully trained in Reading Recovery procedures but had
only minimal training in how to work with children with autism. It is likely
that more training in behavior management would have a positive effect on outcomes.
It is a frequent criticism of Reading Recovery that it is not cost effective.
The allocation of a half teacher for four students for up to 20 weeks is a luxury
that many schools feel that they cannot afford, regardless of the outcomes.
This criticism needs careful consideration for students placed in the regular
classroom. The criticism has less validity when models of special education
delivery are considered. One-to-one work is more common in special education
and staffing formulas make this configuration easier to delivery. Work with
children with autism is often individual so that the Reading Recovery model
holds some potential for use with this group.
Guided Reading
Guided Reading is a teaching method in which students read orally and the teacher
provides direct instruction in phonics and comprehension (Swartz, Shook, &
Klein, 2003a). Guided Reading is frequently used as an intervention for children
who are having difficulty learning to read. In Guided Reading students read
from their own copy of the same text, at the same time, but at their own individual
pace. They do not read chorally. Students are usually convened in groups of
3-6 for similar instructional needs.
The Guided Reading lesson has three distinct phases. 1) Before the reading,
the teacher introduces the text to be read. The instruction includes a preview
of both content and unfamiliar vocabulary. The amount of information provided
by the teacher during this introduction is based on the need for support of
the students in the group. 2) During the reading, the teachers listen in to
each student and provides support at the point of difficulty. The teacher prompts
the student to use his own knowledge to solve the problem. These teacher prompts
help the student employ various reading behaviors to use phonics and comprehension
information available in the text. Examples of prompts are “Does what
you read look that way?,” to use phonics sources of information and “Does
the word you read make sense in this text?” to use comprehension sources
of information. Individual teaching points are also made during the reading.
3) After the reading, the teacher has a discussion with the group about their
comprehension of the text. Teaching points that are useful to the group are
also made after the reading. This sequence is repeated in daily lessons. Student
growth is monitored with a Record of Oral Reading (Swartz, Shook, & Klein,
2003a) that assesses reading errors, comprehension, corrections, accuracy and
fluency.
Method
Participants
The three participants were diagnosed with autism. Participants 1 and 2, aged
6.11 and 11.10, were participants in an after school social and behavior treatment
program and received instruction in Spanish. This instruction was provided in
the home of each participant. Participant 3, aged 16.1, received instruction
as part of a Guided Reading group in a typical self-contained special education
classroom.
Procedures
Participants 1 and 2 received 60 minute lessons, once per week for a period
of three months that included a sequence of skill development and a Guided Reading
lesson. Follow-up activity for Participant 1 included independent writing and
for Participant 2 independent alphabet and vocabulary work.
Participant 3 received instruction in a Guided Reading group with two other
students diagnosed with mild mental retardation. Instruction was provided in
20 minute daily lessons over a period of six weeks. Group work in interactive
writing (Swartz, Klein, and Shook, 2001) followed the lesson.
Results
Results for Participants 1 and 2 are ongoing and only considered preliminary.
Text reading level and and writing level increases are reported in Table 4.
Initial assessment for Letter Identification and Text Reading are from the Observation
Survey. The second score for Letter Identification is from the Observation Survey
and the Text Reading score is from the Record of Oral Reading. Writing scores
are from the Writing Rubric used on writing samples three months apart.
Table 4 Preliminary Results for Two Case Studies
___________________________________________________________________________________
Text Reading
Writing Rubric
Participant 1
3/7
1 beginning / 2 emergent
Participant 2
1/5
1 beginning / 2 emergent
___________________________________________________________________________________
Text Level 3 (Swartz, Water, 1994)
Text Level 7 (Swartz, Moving to America, 1995)
Text Level 1 (Swartz, Swartz, & Klein, You, 1996)
Text Level 5 (Swartz, If Germs Were Purple, 1997)
Participant 3 was assessed using the Record of Oral Reading to
determine text reading level. The initial reading level placement was established
with the San Diego Quick Test and the post test level using a readability formula
(Fry, 1977). More complex text with the readability formula is determined by
average sentence length and number of syllables. The error/correction ratio
is how often the student corrected their own error as they read.
Table 5 Text Reading Level for Case Study Student in a
Guided Reading Group - Participant 3
_________________________________________________________________________________
Pre
Post
Text reading level
1st grade
3rd grade
Error/Correction ratio
1/6
1/3
_________________________________________________________________________________
Discussion
Participants in both treatment designs received direct instruction to develop
reading behaviors that are important to become a proficient reader. Lessons
were carefully planned based on ongoing assessments that were used to make each
session strategic to individual needs. Participants 1 and 2 received one-to-one
instruction but the lessons were only scheduled once per week. Participant 3
received more lessons but worked in a small group of three students with similar
needs. All participants made good progress and teachers reported increased interest
in reading with accompanying increases in attention and on-task behavior.
Guided Reading is a group teaching method and as such represents an economy
of scale when compared to Reading Recovery. It is also an inclusive method where
Reading Recovery is a pull-out method. Guided Reading teachers had the advantage
of specific training in working with children with autism.
Discussion About Both Teaching Methods
Both Reading Recovery and Guided Reading are teaching methods that use frequent
assessment to modify instruction. Both teach skills but in the context of meaningful
opportunities to read. Guided Reading has been described as the “first
reading of a new book” part of the Reading Recovery lesson where teachers
provide scaffolded instruction both before and after the reading of the book
(Schwartz, 2002). Teachers are provided intensive training and support in both
theory and practice. The impact of each of these methods is part of an extensive
research agenda.
Reading Recovery teachers needed the flexibility to change the Reading Recovery
lesson sequence to be successful with children with autism. It is clear that
the teachers would also have benefited by additional training in behavior management.
Guided Reading is, by its design, a teaching method that encourages teachers
to use what they know about individual students to plan the lesson.
These teaching methods are ones that provide direct instruction in both phonics
and comprehension and do so while students read. Reading of text is emphasized
over isolated skill practice. Reading Recovery and Guided Reading also make
specific attempts to connect reading and writing. They both attempt to encourage
early student independence by teaching children the reading behaviors necessary
for success.
Based on the outcomes for these six participants both teaching methods can be
recommended for use with children with autism. Training in the teaching methods
and in how to work with children with autism is considered critical for success.
Guided Reading is a collaborative method that can be used with small groups.
The opportunities for inclusion using Guided Reading helps meet an additional
and equally important goal for students placed in special
education.
References
Beaver, J. (1997). Developmental Reading Assessment. Glenview, IL:
Celebration Press.
Clay, M.M. (1979; 1985). The early detection of reading difficulties.
Auckland, NZ: Heinemann.
Clay, M.M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fry, E. (1977). Elementary reading instruction. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill.
Hill, E. (1980). Where’s Spot? New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s
Sons.
National Reading Panel (2001). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching
children to read: An evidenced-based assessment of the scientific research literature
on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC:
National Institutes of Health.
Schwartz, R. (2002). Decision, decisions: Supporting first grade children
during guided reading. Paper presented at the National Reading Council.
Swartz, D. (1994). In my garden. San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
Swartz, J. (1994). Water. San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
Swartz, J. (1995). Moving to America. San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
Swartz, S., & Swartz, J. (1995). The clock that couldn’t tell
time. San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
Swartz, S., Swartz, J., & Klein, A. (1996). You. San Diego, CA:
Dominie Press.
Swartz, S. (1997). If germs were purple. San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
Swartz, S.L., & Klein, A.F. (Eds.) (1997). Research in Reading Recovery.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Swartz, S.L. (1999). California Early Literacy Learning and Reading Recovery:
Two innovations in teaching children to read and write. 1998 Claremont
Reading Conference Yearbook. Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate School.
Swartz, S.L., Klein, A.K., & Shook, R.E. (2001). Interactive writing
and interactive editing. Carlsbad, CA: Dominie Press.
Swartz, S.L., Shook, R.E., & Klein, A.K. (2003a). Guided reading and
literacy centers. Carlsbad, CA: Dominie Press.
Swartz, S.L., Shook, R.E., & Klein, A.K. (2003b). Foundation for California
Early Literacy Learning (technical report). Oceanside, CA: University Associates
Press.
Research Team
Reading Recovery instruction was provided by Cristina Espinoza and Graciela
Arredondo who were trained by Adria F. Klein, Ph.D.
Guided Reading for the two Spanish speaking participants was provided by Liliana
Garcia and Susana Real-Beltran who were trained by Lilia Lopez and Esther Vazquez.
Guided Reading for the English speaking participant was provided by James Reinebach,
a special education teacher and graduate student at California State University.
Stanley L. Swartz, Ph.D.
Professor of Education
California State University
www.stanswartz.com