Introduction
Retention and understanding have become a familiar words for students who have been recognized with severe disabilities. It has been ongoing since the 1970s and is the education sector’s response to such learning problems. For most students, the experience of repeating a grade or level, even if it means failure to comply with the requirements of only one subject, is a dreadful experience. However, the unnerving experience is not only the burden of the student but of the family as well. Not only does retention imply a student’s academic ineptitude, but it also reflects on his / her family’s lack of academic support and assistance for the child. Retention, therefore, is deemed as a consequence, if not a punishment, for its grave academic and socio-economic consequences.
As it is already a recognized challenge to increase the retention level of students with severe disabilities, the more it has become apparent that even the seemingly simple phonic and the whole language learning will be extremely hard for the students with severe disabilities to understand and/or adapt with.
Background
The objective of the Study
The objective of this study is to find the different approaches that can be used in teaching phonics and the whole language to students with varied severe disabilities. An evaluation and comparison of the different literature that concerns this study and other related issues will be used to attain this objective.
Significance of the Study
This study will be able to identify whether the use of various approaches to teaching phonics and the whole aspect of language is appropriate in helping the students learn better or faster, especially the students with varied severe disabilities. The literature may be a helpful aid for educators in finding out the apposite, reliable, and valid measure in increasing students’ retention on phonics and the whole language as well as other academic outcomes.
The study may be a useful tool for further innovation or the creation of new measurement strategies that would be able to accurately predict the academic outcomes of the students, especially those students with severe learning disabilities.
Scientific-based Research about the success of Teaching to Students with Severe Disabilities
Language Acquisition
There have been several theories concerning language acquisition. Furthermore, current theories of second language acquisition are based on years of research in a wide variety of fields that include linguistics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and neuro-linguistics (Allington, 2002). The continuum of learning is one specific concept endorsed by most theorists where it involves predictable and sequential stages of language development. This concept talks about the language learner’s progress from knowing nothing of the language to a competent one who soon resembles a native speaker. Identified distinct stages of language development or acquisition are the following:
- Stage I: The Silent/Receptive or Preproduction Stage: At this stage, students may not be able to speak though they can respond using different strategies like pointing to an object, picture, or person; performing an act that involves gestures and bodily movements; or simply responding “yes” or “no” answers – this is a period called the “silent period.”
Teachers at this point should however not force the students to speak until they are ready to do so. Learners can also have obtained up to 500 “receptive” words, which they can understand, but may not be comfortable using, and can understand new words that are made comprehensible to them. This stage can usually last from 10 hours until 6 months (Allington, 2002).
- Stage II: The Early Production Stage: Usually developing close to 1,000 receptive/active words that they can understand and use, this stage can last an additional six months after the initial stage.
Students during this stage students can usually speak one- or two-word phrases, and can demonstrate comprehension of new material by giving short answers than simple yes/no, either/or, or who/what/where questions (MacDonnel, et. al., 1998).
- Stage III: The Speech Emergence Stage: Capable of lasting up to another year, students at this stage have usually developed approximately 3,000 words and they can at the same time use short phrases and simple sentences to communicate.
They begin to use dialogues and are able to ask simple questions such as “Can I go to the restroom?” They are, furthermore, able to answer simple questions. Though with grammatical errors, students at this stage may produce longer sentences (MacDonnel, et. al., 1998)
- Stage IV: The Intermediate Language Proficiency Stage: At this stage, students begin to make complex statements, state opinions, ask for clarification, share their thoughts, and speak at greater length after having developed close to 6,000 words they can understand and use appropriately.
Intermediate proficiency may still take up to another year after speech emergence (MacDonnel, et. al., 1998).
- Stage V: The Advanced Language Proficiency Stage: Gaining advanced proficiency in a second language can typically take from five to seven years.
By this stage, students have developed some specialized content-area vocabulary and can participate fully in grade-level classroom activities if given occasional extra support. Students can speak English using grammar and vocabulary comparable to that of same-age native speakers (MacDonnel, et. al., 1998).
Success of Program
Teaching Phonics and the Whole Aspect of Language
Phonemic Awareness
Phonemic awareness is the foundation skill that students need to master early in the students’ academic careers. It is important for students, even though they have a recognized severe learning disability, to master phonemic awareness because it improves a student’s word reading and it helps students learn to spell. According to Hall and Moats, it can take four times as much intervention to improve a child’s phonemic awareness reading skills if help is delayed until grade 4 than if it is begun in the first year of school. This is particularly critical in the area of basic skills instruction (vocabulary development, phonemic awareness, and word recognition).
Care should be taken not to emphasize skill instruction based on one single viewpoint or approach. Presenting skills through a narrow scheme of instruction might not be responsive to students’ myriad needs in upper grades. Although systematic and explicit skill instruction is appropriate when needed, flexibility in approach is needed (Foorman, 2002). Once students have mastered phonemic awareness, there is no need to continue instruction in this area. Many teachers use music, poetry, and other activities that have a rhyme in the content to teach phonemic awareness. Teachers should spend 10-15 minutes daily on phonemic awareness instruction (Foorman, 2002).
Phonics
There has been much debate about phonics instruction. However, recent research has given phonics another look and has determined phonic instruction is needed (York, et. al., 1998). Students that master phonics will have the decoding process in hand and can focus on building fluency and comprehension. Use direct, systematic explicit phonics instruction as a primary component of a reading program (York, et. al., 1998).
Students who master the decoding process enjoy reading more because they can spend more time on fluency and comprehension. Children who quickly develop competent decoding processes find reading easier because they can concentrate on the meaning of the text. They read more in school and, of equal importance, reading becomes a self-chosen activity for them (York, et. al., 1998).
Vocabulary
There are different types of vocabulary and students with severe disabilities really need each type. However, the most important type for improvement of the reading process is reading vocabulary. When students lack a vast reading vocabulary, they are unable to build fluency and comprehension. This situation contributes to what is called “Matthew Effects,” that is, interactions with the environment that exaggerate individual differences over time, with “rich get richer, poor get poorer” consequences. Good readers read more, become even better readers, and learn more words; poor readers read less, become poorer readers, and learn fewer words (Haager, & Windmueller, 2001).
Indeed, the vocabulary problems of students who enter school with poor or limited vocabularies only worsen over time (Haager, & Windmueller, 2001). Students can receive explicit vocabulary instruction through a variety of methods, such as modeling, reading to students, and using context clues. It is important to use more than the dictionary as the sole source of learning new and unfamiliar words (Higgins and Rodriguez, 2005). Students can also learn vocabulary through oral language and listening to adults read to and with them. Vocabulary instruction should be a daily practice within the reading blocks as well as integrated into other subject areas.
Comprehension
Most researchers will refer to comprehension instruction as text comprehension. Text comprehension refers to gaining meaning from text (Higgins and Rodriguez, 2005). Students with severe learning disabilities will never master the reading process completely if they do not master comprehension of text. Without comprehension, students will not enjoy reading. Good readers will use reading as a means to gain understanding, information, and pure enjoyment of a good story.
Comprehension is the whole purpose of reading. Many teachers simply believe students will automatically comprehend if they are fluent readers. Comprehension must be taught and students must learn comprehension strategies (Jones, 2005) Comprehension can be taught by explicit instruction, modeling, graphic organizers, summarizing story retelling, and other organizers (Higgins and Rodriguez, 2005). No matter what form of instruction is used it must be flexible and in combination with literature and expository text.
Reading is the gateway skill to all other learning. Students who struggle with reading will feel the “Matthew Effect” the rich get richer in their reading ability and the poor get poorer in their reading ability (McDonnel, et. al., 1998). Students must master the reading process as defined by the National Reading Panel, a complex system of deriving meaning from print that requires all of the following (McDonnel, et. al., 1998):
- the skills and knowledge to understand how phonemes, or speech sounds, are connected to print;
- the ability to decode unfamiliar words;
- the ability to read fluently;
- sufficient background information and vocabulary to foster reading comprehension;
- the development of appropriate active strategies to construct meaning from print; the development and maintenance of a motivation to read.
Effective Learning Practices to Teaching the Whole Aspect of Language
The Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement indicates the following as the necessary elements for students with severe learning disabilities to be successful in the reading process. Any program a school decides to use to effectively teach reading to students with learning disabilities and to potentially curtail retention and social promotion must include the following (McDonnel, et. al., 1998):
- It must be derived from scientifically-based research and must include instructional content that addresses the following five essential components of reading instruction:
- Phonemic Awareness
- Phonics
- Fluency
- Vocabulary
- Comprehension
- The components above must be integrated into a coherent instructional design that includes the following:
- Explicit strategies that address students’ specific strengths and weaknesses.
- Coordinated instructional sequences.
- Ample practice opportunities.
- Student materials aligned with state standards.
- It must allocate sufficient time—a protected, uninterrupted block of time for reading instruction of more than 90 minutes per day. Also includes time outside the school day such as after-school programs, summer school, and extended school year.
- It must include assessments for diagnosing student needs.
- It must include assessments for measuring student progress.
- It must include a professional development plan that ensures teachers have the skills and support necessary to implement the reading program effectively and to meet the reading needs of all students (Moberg and Savolainen, 2003).
Conclusion
This study will have the potential to affect the faculty of the schools with students having a recognized severe disability in various ways. First, it will allow school administrators, literacy coaches, and teachers the opportunity to recognize and state the objectives of their professional development training while also being able to evaluate the overall effectiveness of their language instructional program.
The group will then be able to see possible areas of disagreement or misunderstanding, which will allow the group to also seek methods of improvement. By identifying evaluation norms and measures of success and failure in a program, can lead to a stronger understanding of the school’s overall mission to meet the goals set by the state and federal government. The evaluation norms will also create a more stable program foundation upon which to achieve further improvement.
The evaluation of the effectiveness of the professional development component will ultimately provide the administration with valuable information. This information will be used to enhance, restructure, maintain, and provide ongoing professional development addressing the needs of the students with varied severe disabilities in achieving the needed knowledge on phonics and language. Once the school, coaches, teachers, and administrators realize the effectiveness of the professional development component, the students with disabilities will receive a better mark on the phonic and language learning process.
References
Allington, R. 2002.What I’ve Learned about Effective Reading Instruction from a Decade of Studying Exemplary Elementary Classroom Teachers (Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 83, No. 10: 740-747.
Foorman, B. 2002. Definitions and Overview of Fluency: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges. Pacific Regional National Laboratory.
Haager, D. & Windmueller, M. 2001. “Early Reading Intervention for English Language Learners At-Risk for Learning Disabilities: Student and Teacher Outcomes in an Urban School.” Learning Disability Quarterly. Council for Learning Disabilities.. 24: 4. 235.
Higgins, K. and Rodriguez, D. 2005. “Preschool Children with Developmental Delays and Limited English Proficiency.” Intervention in School & Clinic. Vol. 40.
Jones‌, Phyllis (2005) Inclusion: lessons from the children. British Journal of Special Education 32:2, 60.
McCallum, R. S., Bracken, B. A., & Wasserman, J. D. 2001. “Essentials of nonverbal assessment.” New York: John Wiley & Sons.
McDonnell, John Thorson, Nadine, and Camille McQuivey (1998). The Instructional Characteristics of Inclusive Classes for Elementary Students with Severe Disabilities: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Behavioral Education Springer Netherlands. Volume 8, Number 4.
Moberg, Sakari and Savolainen, Hannu ‌. (2003) Struggling for inclusive education in the North and the South: Educators?? perceptions on inclusive education in Finland and Zambia. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 26:1, 21.
Pray, L. 2005. “How Well Do Commonly Used Language Instruments Measure English Oral-Language Proficiency?” Bilingual Research Journal.
Ryndak, Diane Lea and Jackson‌, Lewis (2000), Defining School Inclusion for Students With Moderate to Severe Disabilities: What Do Experts Say? Vol. 8, No. 2, Pages 101-116.
Stoner, G. 2003. “Concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills and the comprehensive test of phonological processing.” School Psychology Review.
York , Jennifer, Vandercook ,Terri, MacDonald, Cathy, Heise-Neff, Cheri, and Caughey, Ellen (1998). Feedback about integrating middle-school students with severe disabilities in general education classes. Exceptional Children, Vol. 58.