USING AN IPAD AND GENERALIZATION TRAINING IN STORY-BASED LESSONS FOR ELEMENTARY STUDENTS Dr. Fred Spooner Amy Kemp-Inman Dr. Lynn Alhgrim-Delzell University of North Carolina at Charlotte Dr. Leah A. Wood Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Luann Ley Davis University of North Carolina at Charlotte

IMPORTANCE OF LITERACY SKILLS  Increased access to all academic content  Enhanced life opportunities  Community participation  Independence  Leisure  Employment  (Browder et al., 2009; Copeland & Keefe, 2007)

NATIONAL FOCUS ON LITERACY  National Reading Panel (2000)  National Institute for Literacy (2001)  Common Core State Standards (2010)  Reading literature  Reading informational texts Reading foundational skills Writing Speaking and listening  Language

HIGHER EXPECTATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES  Access to general curriculum/Inclusion of all students on accountability measures  No Child Left Behind of 2001 (2006)  Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004)

EMERGENT LITERACY SKILLS  Correlated with later literacy achievement (National Early Literacy Panel, NELP,2008)  Concepts of print  Left-to right, front-to-back, title, author, text  Comprehension of oral language (including vocabulary)

COMPONENTS OF THE PRESENT STUDY  Emergent Literacy Skill Instruction  Shared stories  Technology  Portable, socially inclusive tablets  Generalization

SHARED STORIES  Also called story-based lessons, read-alouds  Recommended intervention for promoting engagement with the material (NELP, 2008)  Can promote emergent literacy skills (Browder et al., 2009; Hudson & Test, 2011)  Promotes access to grade-aligned content  Comprehension of subject matter  Encourages active responding  Listening comprehension for nonreaders  Browder et al. (2009, RASE)

SHARED STORIES  Hudson & Test (2011) 6 studies met inclusion criteria – all single case design Criteria based on Horner et al. (2005) suggested quality indicators (QI) were applied All studies met 19/20 QIs across 2 geographical areas  Established a moderate level of evidence

KEY FEATURES OF SHARED STORIES  Use grade-appropriate text  Often adapted  Systematic Instruction  Evidence-based practice for teaching students with developmental disabilities  Literacy (Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006)  Mathematics (Browder, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Harris, & Wakeman, 2008)  Science (Spooner, Knight, Browder, Jimenez, & DiBiase, 2011)

 Can optimize learning through shared stories  Time delay  Task analysis  System of least prompts

RESEARCH ON SHARED STORIES  Browder, Trela, & Jimenez (2007)  Trained teachers to use time delay and a task analysis in grade-aligned shared stories  Four students: nonverbal with severe disabilities  Results indicated  All students increased independent responses  Task analysis improved teacher implementation fidelity

RESEARCH ON SHARED STORIES Mims, Hudson, & Browder (2012)  Biographies – Adapted text from 6 th grade literature textbook  Four middle school students with ID and autism  Shared story task analysis with systematic instruction  All students demonstrated improvement in listening comprehension

Shared Story Task Analysis 1. Make prediction 6. Identify key vocabulary 2. Identify Title 7. Turn pages when appropriate 3. Identify Author 8. Anticipate or finish repeated storyline 4. Orient book correctly/Open book 9. Answer listening comprehension questions 5. Text point (follow text from left to right)

TECHNOLOGY AND LITERACY  Academically inclusive: Extends access to grade- aligned literature for students with severe disabilities and communication support needs  Portable Computer-based devices  iPad®, other tablets  Communication Apps for iPad® (e.g., Proloquo2go, GoTalk®)  Advantages over traditional assistive technology  Can serve multiple functions at once (Douglas, Wojcik, & Thompson, 2012)  Can be less stigmatizing/more socially inclusive (Kagohara et al., 2013)

TECHNOLOGY AND LITERACY  Preliminary evidence for increasing independence, on- task behavior, communication  Kagohara et al. (2013); Mechling (2011)  Accessibility features  Text-to-speech  Highlighting text  Touchscreen  Multiple apps  Embed pictures and videos

SHARED STORIES USING PORTABLE TECHNOLOGY  Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Kemp-Inman, & Wood (2014)  Used an iPad® to teach shared stories across four grade- aligned books  Four elementary students with moderate intellectual disability, autism, and communication support needs  GoTalk Now© communication app  Text-to-speech, touchscreen, embedded pictures  Results indicated  Increase in student independent responses on task analysis  Maintained skills for 3-5 weeks following intervention

WHAT WE KNOW…  Shared stories work for students with severe disabilities  Improves access to grade-aligned literature  Promotes emergent literacy skills  Portable technology can further improve access to academics  Socially inclusive  Provides students with a voice  Serves multiple functions

THE NEXT STEP…  Can students with severe disabilities generalize these literacy skills to new content?  Stokes & Baer (1977)  We must teach for generalization  Train and hope?  Train sufficient exemplars

EXPLICITLY TEACHING FOR GENERALIZATION  Multiple exemplars/ provide examples and non-examples  Teaching students how to bus tables  Horner, Eberhard, & Sheehan (1986)  Teaching prepositions  Hicks, Bethune, Wood, Cooke, & Mims (2011)  Teaching generalization of WH words for emergent readers  Browder, Hudson, & Wood (2013)  Can use model-lead-test format to present exemplars  Knight, Smith, Spooner, & Browder (2011)

PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT STUDY  What are the effects of systematic and explicit instruction to teach emergent literacy skills through shared stories formatted on an iPad®?  What are the effects of the shared story intervention on student listening comprehension?  Can students generalize these skills to new content?

METHOD  Participants  Inclusion Criteria  Nonverbal or limited verbal ability  Uses some form of AAC  Adequate visual discrimination  Adequate auditory discrimination  Motor skills to point to pictures and access iPad2®  Diagnosis of developmental disabilities  Eligible to receive alternate assessments via alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS)

METHOD  Participants StudentAgeGenderEthnicityEligible for AA-AAS DiagnosisVerbal Ability Sebrina7FemaleAfrican- American YesAutism/ Developmenta l delay Very limited Miranda8FemaleHispanicYesAutism/ Developmenta l delay Nonverbal / ELL Jesse9MaleHispanicYesMultiple disabilities Very limited Madison9FemaleEuropean- American YesMultiple disabilities Very limited Gabriel11MaleAfrican- American YesDown syndrome Limited

METHOD  Setting  Public Elementary School  Southeastern suburban area  2 special education classrooms  Sessions were held in small separate room

METHOD  Materials  Grade-aligned chapter book – Charlotte’s Web  Adapted text, vocabulary definitions and comprehension questions verified by a literacy expert  iPad2 ®  GoTalk Now© application  Text-to-speech  Auditory cueing  Embedded picture cues  Task Analysis

Shared Story Task Analysis 1.Touch title Taught using examples and non-examples 6. Comprehension question #1 Taught using modified system of least prompts 2. Touch author name Taught using examples and non-examples 7. Text-point – 2 nd page of text Taught using time delay (0s followed by 4s delay) 3. Turn page (at least 3 times) Taught using time delay (0s followed by 4s delay) 8. Touch repeated storyline Taught using time delay (0s followed by 4s delay) 4. Text-point -1 st page of text Taught using time delay (0s followed by 4s delay) 9. Comprehension question #2 Taught using modified system of least prompts 5. Vocabulary Taught using examples and non-examples Shared Story Task Analysis with Generalization Training Procedures

METHOD  Experimental Design  Multiple probe across participants (Horner & Baer, 1978)  Individually administered  Procedure  Baseline  Shared story task analysis with iPad  1 adapted chapter per day – Charlotte’s Web  No prompting/error correction  Intervention  Shared story task analysis – same as baseline  Generalization training

METHOD  Data Collection  Dependent Variables  Number of correct responses on task analysis  Mastery Criterion = 8/9 steps correct for 3 consecutive sessions  Number of correct responses to comprehension questions  Response definitions:  Correct response – student touches or demonstrates correct response within 4 seconds of initial cue  Incorrect response – student touches or demonstrates incorrect response, or student does not respond within 4 seconds of initial cue

RESULTS  All students met mastery criteria  Students were able to learn skills during generalization training  Increase in performance data indicates application of skills to new content  Students demonstrated steady increase in listening comprehension  Interrater Reliability (IRR)/Procedural Fidelity  Collected across 20% of all phases.  IRR: Average of 93%  Fidelity: Average of 94%

Figure 1. Number of correct responses on the task analysis across five participants for baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases. Arrows indicate the point at which mastery was met.

Figure 2. Cumulative independent correct responses for listening comprehension questions. Change line indicates when intervention began. Connected data points are sessions up until mastery criteria was met. Arrows indicating the point at which mastery was met. Unconnected data points which follow are cumulative data points during the maintenance phase.

RESULTS  Social Validity  Teacher questionnaire  Teachers’ perceptions:  Listening comprehension is a valuable skill  Use of iPad ® is appropriate for instruction  Materials were grade-aligned and age-appropriate  Skills are generalizable  Cost-effectiveness  iPad ® served multiple purposes  GoTalk Now © app less expensive than traditional AAC

DISCUSSION  Generalization training was effective in teaching early literacy skills  Students applied skills to new content (different chapters each session)  Students maintained skills above baseline levels following intervention  Students demonstrated moderate increase in listening comprehension

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE  Teaching multiple exemplars (examples and non- examples) can promote generalization of skills for students with severe disabilities  The iPad can be engaging/provide response opportunities for students with communication support needs  Shared stories can increase student access to grade- appropriate literature  Extended study of a single chapter may further enhance student comprehension  Consider using voice recordings instead of text-to-speech

FUTURE RESEARCH  Teacher or peer delivery of intervention  Assess student success in general education setting  Examine these procedures using cross-disciplinary content (e.g., expository texts in science, social studies)  Include higher-level thinking comprehension questions and strategies (e.g., self-questioning, analysis, evaluation)

QUESTIONS? Please Contact us for more info: Dr. Fred Spooner Amy Kemp-Inman Dr. Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell Dr. Leah Wood Luann Ley Davis