1. Supporting Emergent Literacy Development in Students who are Deafblind NCDB Topical Conference May 13, 2008 Amy R. McKenzie, Ed.D. Florida State University Program in Visual Impairments

2. Presentation Outline Literacy Defined The Fundamental Truths Barriers to Literacy Development Research Findings Recommendations

3. Emergent Literacy Defined Emergent literacy is the process of developing literacy that begins at birth and ends when children begin to engage in conventional or functional reading and writing (Sulzby & Teale, 1991)

4. Literacy and Student who are DB Students with deafblindness may or may not attain conventional literacy skills However, many students with deafblindness will attain functional literacy skills Additionally, communication is often the primary need for this student population

5. Literacy and Students who are DB …literacy is communication especially when the concepts and issues are applied to students with visual impairments and additional disabilities. In this respect, then, literacy is the most basic foundation for all learning, for receiving and imparting information, and for initiating interactions with others. (Langley, 2000)

6. The Fundamental Truths

7. The following “fundamental truths” are borrowed from Alan Koenig & Cay Holbrook’s keynote presentation at the Getting in Touch with Literacy Conference in Philadelphia 2001

8. The Fundamental Truths 1.Every child who is deafblind has the right to attain literacy to the greatest extend of his or her abilities.

9. The Fundamental Truths 2. All students who are deafblind have the right to literacy instruction from qualified personnel, including a teacher of students with visual impairments, a teacher of students who are deaf or hard of hearing, and a deafblind specialist.

10. Barriers to Literacy Development for Students who are Deafblind

11. Barriers to Literacy Development 1. The “low incidence” nature of deafblindness –This is a numbers issue!

12. Barriers to Literacy Development 2. The lack of knowledge about deafblindness of general educators, special educators, and related service providers –This is a preservice training issue!

13. Barriers to Literacy Development 3. The limited knowledge and skills for working with students who are deafblind of teachers of students with visual impairments & teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing –Again, this is a preservice training issue!

14. Barriers to Literacy Development 4. The limited supply of qualified personnel to work with students who are deafblind –This is a preservice funding issue!

15. Barriers to Literacy Development 5. The limited or lack of knowledge regarding the unique needs and literacy needs of students who are deafblind by administrators, departments of education, and legislatures –This is an advocacy issue!

16. Barriers to Literacy Development 6. The lack of curricular publications and materials for literacy instruction of students who are deafblind –This is a low-incidence issue!

17. Barriers to Literacy Development 7. The belief that many students who are deafblind are “nonreaders” –This is an awareness issue!

18. Barriers to Literacy Development 8. A lack of research! –This is a field-wide issue!

19. Emergent Literacy Supports for Students who are Deafblind: Research Findings

20. Study Background Information Qualitative, multiple case study involving 4 schools 6 classrooms for students with deafblindness or visual impairments 18 student participants –Ages ranges from 3.25-21.8 years; mean age of 11.3 years 100% had additional disabilities

21. Study Background Information Data collected: Environmental Supports Teaching Strategies & Activities Assessment Reports IEP Goals & Objectives IEP Accommodations & Supplementary Aids/Service

22. Environments and Activities On average, 46% of the environmental characteristics supported by el research were observed On average, 51% of the teaching strategies and activities supported by el research were observed See Table 1 & 2

23. Assessment Reports 100% eye reports 100% audiologist reports 94% FVE 11.1% LMA 64.7% Communication Assessment (Partial) 55% O&M Evaluations

24. IEPs 27.6% of goals – communication 14.2% of goals – literacy 24.2% of accommodations – communication 22.7% of accommodations – literacy

25. Other Significant Findings In 5 of the 6 classrooms, the “print rich” environment was inaccessible to the students who are deafblind The most “academic” classroom displayed the fewest characteristics supported by the el research

26. Other Significant Findings All related service providers reported supporting emergent literacy development All paraprofessionals reported supporting emergent literacy development

27. Other Significant Findings Discrepancies between classroom teacher interviews, observations, and IEP reviews existed All classroom teachers reported being a “facilitator” of literacy development Two classroom teachers reported their students were nonreaders

28. Other Significant Findings One classroom teacher graduated from a deafblind training program; no other classrooms had contact with such trained professionals One classroom had contact with a teacher of the deaf & hard of hearing

29. Other Significant Findings Two classroom teachers were trained as teachers of students with visual impairments; no other classrooms had access to a teacher of students with visual impairments

30. Recommendations

31. Emergent Literacy Practices Continue and increase the use of age appropriate environmental characteristics and activities that support emergent literacy development Increase the use of accommodations for access to environmental print in student’s assessed learning media

32. Emergent Literacy Practices Increase the use of learning media assessments (LMAs) for students who are deafblind Decrease the use of the terminology “nonreader” when referring to students in the emergent literacy phase of literacy development

33. Practices in the Field Include information on deafblindness in preservice and inservice training for general educators, special educators, and related service providers

34. Practices in the Field Increase information on the literacy needs of students who are deafblind in preservice and inservice training of teachers of students with visual impairments and teachers of the deaf & hard of hearing

35. Practices in the Field Increased advocacy for funding to existing and new preservice programs training deafblind specialists

36. Practices in the Field Increased advocacy to bring about awareness of administrators, departments of education, and legislatures regarding the unique literacy needs of students who are deafblind

37. Practices in the Field Increased demand for and creation of literacy curricular materials for students who are deafblind

38. Practices in the Field RESEARCH! –First, we need to build a foundation of knowledge regarding current practices and standards –Next, we need to expand intervention-based research regarding current and new practices and standards

39. Contact Information Amy R. McKenzie, Ed.D. Assistant Professor Program in Visual Impairments College of Education Florida State University mckenzie@coe.fsu.edu 850-645-6588