Teaching Children with Down’s Syndrome to Read: A Phonics ...



Teaching Children with Down Syndrome to Read: A Phonics Based Approach

MED-ME

Katherine Eggie

1/14/2011

A Capstone Presented to the Faculty of the Teachers College of Western Governors University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Education

Chair: Dr. Mario Castro

Abstract

Children with Down syndrome have a high capacity for learning. Typically, the majority of this population is taught to read via sight word/whole language instruction instead of an explicit, systematic phonics based approach. I believe we need a program that teaches children language through their challenges. Down syndrome is a genetic disorder and is not specific to any one race, gender, socioeconomic group or geographical location. My overall goal is to show that children with Down syndrome can increase their reading skills through a phonics based program. The learner, once completing the program, will increase their reading scores by 50% from initial assessment data within a six month period. This goal will be attained by working with students utilizing a phonics based, multisensory approach to reading instruction.

Keywords: Down syndrome, literacy, instruction

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM

Introduction………………………………………………….5

Problem Statement………………………………………..…6

Description of Stakeholder Groups…………………………12

Research Question and Goal Statement…………………….12

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction…………………………………………………14

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY

Learner Analysis…………………………………………....19

Research and Evaluation Instruments……………………...21

Special Populations………………………………………...22

Materials……………………………………………………22

Performance Objectives………………………………….....23

Learning Theories and Instructional Strategies……….........24

Procedure…………………………………………………...26

Integrity of Data……………………………………………33

Permissions and Anonymity………………………………..34

Technology Used in the Curriculum……………………......34

Data Analysis……………………………………………….35

Chapter 4: RESULTS

Report of Results…………………………………….……..36

Recommended Revisions……………………………………38

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

Discussion……………………………………………………40

Implications and Limitations…………………………………40

Conclusion……………………………………………………41

References……………………………………………………………42

Appendix A………………………………………………………….44

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM

Introduction

What I did

For this research project, I worked with six students with Down’s syndrome. I worked with them over the course of six months and implemented a phonics based reading program. Prior to instruction, I performed a pre-assessment to determine the student’s reading ability prior to instruction. I then began instruction twice per week for one hour. After the six month period, I then performed the pre-assessment once again to determine the progress made over the course of the six months.

Why I Chose This Project

I am a special education teacher and have worked in many different domains over the years. I feel strongly that children with disabilities should be held to higher standards that what we currently expect and feel that with appropriate instruction, these students can exceed expectations in reading to live more independent lives as adults.

Why It Is Important

Individuals with disabilities such as Down’s syndrome often outlive their caregivers. It’s crucial that we help these individuals become as independent as possible. In addition, it is important that we provide instruction to give such individuals the best possible opportunity to enjoy an independent life. Reading is so important to our lives. We use the skill of reading every day, all day. Whether we are reading for pleasure or reading street signs, bus schedules or paying our bills, we must be able to read in order to care for ourselves and function in a literacy based society.

How It Related To Appropriate Theory For Your Discipline

It is important for the students and their educators that we develop appropriate tools to evaluate their needs and their abilities in reading. This research will show that students are capable of higher level reading skills, thus proving that we need to create evaluations and instruction to aide in this learning.

How the Project Fits Into Teaching and Learning in Your Field

Students with disabilities can learn. We, as educators, must revise our previous ways of thinking and encourage the development of literacy in children who are challenged cognitively. Special education is a field that is constantly changing. We are always reading and studying to learn new ways to challenge and educate individuals that some feel may not be successful. It’s this desire to prove successful that this research project came about. I am extremely excited to share the results with teachers, parents and therapists. It is my hope that I will be able to prove this type of instruction is not only valid, but appropriate for children with Down’s syndrome.

Problem Statement

Definition of the Problem

 Most previous instruction and instructional strategies have focused on teaching students with Down syndrome to read by utilizing sight word instruction and focusing on comprehension.  This research will heighten our expectations of children with Down syndrome by going beyond sight words and incorporating a phonics-based approach to language instruction. This will require recognition of deficits common amongst individuals with Down syndrome and working to overcome those difficult areas.

What becomes very clear during this research is that most agree that children with Down syndrome should initially be taught through a sight word, whole language approach to instruction and then gradually move toward teaching phonics and phonemic awareness.  This is because this type of learning and instruction requires a lower level of thought process and skill and is taught through drill method.

Possible Causes of the Problem

Children with Down syndrome are not provided with the opportunity to read material due to the belief that they should be taught to read using a sight word based reading instruction program. Many children with Down syndrome have the capacity to learn at a higher level and that includes the ability to learn to read material beyond what a sight word program can teach. This research proposes that children with Down syndrome are can increase their reading ability using a phonics based approach to reading instruction.

Background Information

Children with Down syndrome have a high capacity for learning. Typically, however, the majority of this population is taught to read via sight word/whole language instruction instead of an explicit, systematic phonics based approach. Although, this researcher believes that we should begin sight words at a very young age, she also believes we need a program that teaches children language through their challenges. This language program must teach phonics systematically through multi-sensory avenues and must include rehearsals and strategies to assist with overcoming verbal short-term memory deficits, as well as, communication cues and strategies.

Currently, most children with Down syndrome begin learning to read using sight words in a look-and-say method or through drills. This often begins at a very young age, sometimes during the first year of life and continues on through the child’s educational career.

Some schools will teach beginning phonics in secondary school. But, the majority of a child’s reading instruction consists of rote memorization, continual drills and combining those learned words into sentences. Through experience, this researcher believes that many children with Down syndrome can be taught to read using an explicit, multi-sensory phonics approach to instruction. As there is no one way to teach all children, we should not deny a child with Down syndrome the opportunity to further their literacy skills because of their disability. The researcher is not proposing that all children will gain decoding ability with this type of program, rather that many children who are now denied the opportunity can indeed succeed in a multi-sensory, explicit phonics program.

The researcher chose two methods of data collection to analyze the need for this type of instruction. The first method of collection was a survey issued to parents of children with Down syndrome to gather information on the child’s current programming. The researcher created the survey questions to understand what parents were experiencing in their child’s school. This survey was sent out to hundreds of people including organizations locally and nationally. With such a wide range of recipients, the researcher feels she obtained a good sample of current experiences of children with Down syndrome.

The second method of data collection was completed through direct interviews. The researcher contacted ten parents across the country that were willing to speak to her about their child and the literacy programs used to teach their child. The researcher chose this method because various parts of the country do things quite differently. She wanted to get a perspective from many regions of America. An interview format was chosen because she wanted more information than a simple survey would provide.

Through a computerized data search, the researcher found that 1 in every 800 children is born with Down syndrome. Approximately 340,000 individuals in the United States have Down syndrome. Illinois state testing scores in reading align all children with developmental disabilities into one category. However, most children with Down syndrome fall into the cognitive disability group. 2006-07 data shows that 286,112 children in the state of Illinois, ages 6-21, have some form of a disability. 25,562 of those children have a cognitive disability. In grades 3rd, 4th and 8th, at least 40% of children with disabilities scored in the meets range on state reading tests. In grades 5th, 6th and 7th, at least 30% of children with disabilities scored in the meets range on state reading tests. This is in contrast to their non-disabled peers, of whom at least 75% scored in the meets range in 3rd-6th grades and at least 80% in the 7th and 8th grade. Analyzing the survey results proved to the most difficult due to the quantity of responses. The researcher went through each survey and reviewed comments and tallied scores to come to a percentage.

The interview portion of the data collection was similar to the survey portion as the researcher asked the same questions and included that data into the survey data results. By performing an interview, the researcher was able to reach individuals in various parts of the country. She was able to compile responses into a table and put the comments into a narrative.

State data was readily available from the State of Illinois educational report card data located online and in print.

Through this analysis, the researcher discovered that the hypothesis is correct. Most children with Down syndrome are still taught through a sight word curriculum with some phonics included to round out the program. She also found that parents want their children to be taught through phonics to increase their ability to read. In fact, 81.5% of the respondents felt that their child would benefit from a program that teaches phonics/decoding in addition to sight words in a multi-sensory, small group setting. An alarming 46.2% of the respondents consider their children beginning readers and the ages of the students surveyed varied between 10-24. Approximately 51.9% of children read using both phonics and sight words, with an emphasis on sight words. Sight words will not get children through adulthood; therefore we must include phonics in the reading program of children with Down syndrome. The researcher also found that children with disabilities score much more poorly on state testing than their non-disabled peers. This data further supports the need for a reading program that will allow students to read unknown words.

Parent Survey/Interview Responses

|Response |% of |Response |% of resp. |Response |% of resp. |Response |% of resp. |Response |% of |

| |resp. | | | | | | | |resp. |

|My child in a |46.2 |My child in a|26.9 |My child in |

|beginning reader | |emergent | |an |

| | |reader | |independent |

| | | | |reader |

|Student A |5/3 |35 |11/3 |50 |

|Student B |5/8 |30 |11/9 |65 |

|Student C |5/3 |40 |11/16 |62 |

|Student D |5/2 |63 |11/5 |78 |

|Student E |5/8 |15 |11/5 |25 |

|Student F |5/4 |25 |11/3 |35 |

| | | | | |

|P-value= |0.00291939 | | | |

The data chart below shows the percentage of growth during the six months of phonics instruction.

|  |Date |Pre-Test |Date |Post-Test |% of Change |Target % |Met goal? |

|P-value= |0.00291939 | | | | | | |

From this chart, we can conclude that although the P-value showed us that the alternate hypothesis is correct, there were two students that did not meet their target growth. However, although they did not meet their target growth for this study, it should be noted that all students in the study made reasonable growth and thus this data should continue to support the use of a phonics-based literacy instruction program for children with Down syndrome.

Recommended Revisions

To further validate this type of instruction, several aspects of data should be compiled to further compare and ensure that the growth made by students is from the phonics instruction and not other instruction. One piece of data that would be beneficial would be to track progress for 6 months prior to this study. This would provide the researcher with a level of progress baseline to, again, measure the type of growth the student typically made without phonics instruction. This would add more validity to the percentage of growth, which, in turn, would add more validity to the use of a phonics based instruction for reading.

A second revision to this study would be to include a larger sample. Students with disabilities are often affected by environments and social situations that will affect their learning, as well. At least two of the students in this study experienced illness and emotional stress during the six month period. Future studies including a larger sample would provide for an analysis of more stability and consistency.

The final revision to this study would be to increase the duration of the study. Although six month is a respectable length of instruction, a more viable duration would be one full school year. Typically, growth would be measured from a fall assessment to a spring assessment. This would align with the school year and provide a more accurate assessment of student ability with consistent instruction.

CHAPTER FIVE: Discussion

Discussion

These current findings add substantially to our understanding of the abilities of students with Down syndrome in the area of literacy. The methods of this study may be applied to a classroom or individual instruction sessions. It is of this researcher’s opinion that this study is valid and that the results are indicative of the results that should be expected in a similar setting with similar instruction.

Considerably, more work will need to be done to ensure transfer of skills to other areas of instruction and is generalized into other reading material outside of those used during instruction. In addition, future studies will need to ensure that the same level of intensity and instruction are maintained when studying further.

It would be interesting to perform this type of instruction as a whole class intervention and determine the progress made over the course of a year with whole class versus a one to one situation. A study of this kind would greatly further the instruction of students with Down syndrome in the area of literacy if the researcher saw growth with a phonics-based literacy program through whole group instruction.

Implications and Limitations

Several limitations to this pilot study need to be acknowledged. First, the sample size was small and selective. If this research were performed randomly, the results may show a very different result especially if the students do not have the required skills discussed in this research paper.

Another limitation was that the instruction was often done within the student’s home. This could be beneficial, however, often this proved to be distracting to most of the students. Many students were often distracted by snacks, pets, siblings, telephones ringing and parents. These distractions caused us to lose focus and took time away from the direct instruction.

The final limitation could not be avoided by this researcher and that is the general health of the students. Several students became ill during the six month period and required some missed sessions or working while ill which is not a prime condition for instruction.

Conclusion

This research provides the education field with much needed information regarding the practice of instructing children with Down syndrome in the skill of reading. It is the desire of this researcher to provide this information to those who work with these students to encourage successful instruction that will promote independence in school and further into life.

References

Arndt, Elissa. (2006). Orton-Gillingham Approach. Retrieved from on September 7, 2009.

Azen, Debbie and Geller, Marsha. (2002). SLANT system for structured language training: Stage 1. Buffalo Grove, IL: Geller Educational Resources.

Broadley I, MacDonald J. Teaching short term memory skills to children with Down syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and Practice. 1993;1(2);56-62.

Buckley, S. and Bird, G. (1993). Teaching children with Down’s syndrome to read. The Down Syndrome Educational Trust Down Syndrome Research and Practice. 1(1) 34-39.

Cupples, L and Iacono, T. (2000). Phonological awareness and oral reading skill in children with down syndrome. The Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research. 43: 595-608

CureResearch (2003). Statistics for Down Syndrome. Retrieved from on 10/7/2009.

Dickinson, L. The use of a reading program and signing to develop language and communication skills in a toddler with Down syndrome. Tidewater Down Syndrome Association Newsletter. February 1999.

Evans R. Phonological awareness in children with Down syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and Practice. 1994;2(3);102-105.

Gaiser, Barbara. (2006). Meeting the Challenge of the Oral Language Gap, Skill in Verbal Reasoning is a Major Factor in Performance on the FCAT. Retrieved from   on September 18, 2009

Hartshorne, M. Speech, language and communication needs and literacy difficulties. I CAN Talk Series. 2006: 1(1).

Jarrold C, Baddeley AD, Phillips C. Down Syndrome and the Phonological Loop: The Evidence for, and Importance of, a Specific Verbal Short-Term Memory Deficit. Down Syndrome Research and Practice. 1999;6(2);61-75.

Jestice, Haley. (2008). Preventing Failure of ‘At-Risk’ Students. A therapist’s role in the response to intervention process. Retrieved from on September 20, 2009.

Kruse, Kevin. (2007). Gagne’s nine events of instruction: an introduction. Retrieved from

Laws G, Buckley SJ, MacDonald J, Broadley I. The influence of reading instruction on language and memory development in children with Down syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and Practice. 1995;3(2);59-64.

Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2010, June). Cognitivism at Learning-. Retrieved June 10, 2010 from .

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (2006). RTI Manual. Fidelity of implementation.  2006;4;2-4.       

Powell, K. (2009). Reading skills in children with down syndrome. Retrieved from disabilities.article.cfm/reading_skills_in_children_with_down_syndrome on August 26, 2009.

Scholastic. CORE Phonics Survey. (2002). Retrieved on April 13, 2010

Shaywitz, S. (2003).  Overcoming Dyslexia.  New York:  Random House.  

State of Illinois (2007). 2006-2007 Annual State Report on Special Education. Retrieved from on 10/7/2009.

Up for Reading (2007). Teaching reading skills to children with Down syndrome. Retrieved from on August 26, 2009.

Utah Department of Health. (2003). ABLE Program. Occupational therapists. Retrieved from on September 15, 2009.

Article available online at:

Vanderbilt University (2003). Understanding by Design. Retrieved June 9, 2010 from

Appendix A

Teacher Resource _ Assessment Tool

© Scholastic Red 2002

WHAT

The CORE Phonics Survey assesses the phonics and phonics related

skills that have a high rate of application in beginning reading. Each survey presents a number of lists of letters and words for the student to identify or decode. Pseudowords, or made-up words, are included since the student must use decoding skills to correctly pronounce these words and cannot have memorized them. These assessments are best used to plan instruction for students in the primary grades and to develop instructional groups. They may

be administered every four to six weeks.

WHY

A student’s ability to use knowledge of sound/letter correspondences (phonics) to decode words determines, in large measure, his or her ability to read

individual words. A detailed assessment of a student’s phonics skills points to areas in which the student is likely to benefit most from systematic, explicit phonics instruction. Also, knowing the skills that the student does possess will help in selecting reading tasks that offer the most effective reinforcement of those skills.

HOW

Instructions for administering each part of the survey are included on the Record Form. Students read from the Student Material on the pages that follow the Record Form. To focus the student’s attention on the part of the test being given, cover the other parts with a piece of paper. The RecordForm shows the same material that appears on the Student Material, in a reduced size, so that you

may easily record the student’s responses. Following administration, score each of the test parts, and transfer the results to the first page of theRecord Form under Skills Summary. Retest every 4–6 weeks but only on parts not yet mastered. Be aware of the student’s behavior during testing. If the student is tiring or making many consecutive errors, discontinue testing at that time.

WHAT IT MEANS

This test is a mastery test. It is expected that students will ultimately get all items correct. In five-item subtest, a student who misses two or more items would benefit from more direct instruction in the indicated element. In ten-item subtests, three or more errors warrant attention.

WHAT’S NEXT?

Use the information to monitor phonics instruction and to design skill groups in direct instruction in the particular element measured. Older students who score poorly on the CVC portion of the survey may need further assessment, such as the CORE Phoneme Segmentation Test.

CORE Phonics Survey Skills Assessed: Phonics

Grade Level: K–8

Language: English

Grouping: Individual

Approximate

Testing Time: 10–15 Minutes

Materials: Pencil,

Lined Paper

Adapted from CORE Teaching Reading Sourcebook: For Kindergarten through Eighth Grade.

Copyright c 2000 Consortium on Reading Excellence, Inc. All rights reserved.

Name_________________________________________________________________Grade___________________________________________________ Date___________________________________________

SKILLS SUMMARY

Alphabet Skills

___/ 26 Letter names - uppercase

___/ 26 Letter names - lowercase

___/ 23 Consonant sounds

___/ 5 Long vowel sounds

___/ 5 Short vowel sounds

Reading and Decoding Skills

___/ 10 Short vowels in CVC words

___/ 10 Short vowels, digraphs, and -tch trigraph

___/ 20 Consonant blends with short vowels

___/ 10 Long vowel spellings

___/ 10 Variant vowels and diphthongs

___/ 10 r- and l-controlled vowels

___/ 24 Multisyllabic words

Spelling Skills

___/ 5 Initial consonants

___/ 5 Final consonants

___/ 5 CVC words

___/ 5 Long vowel spellings

Skills to review:

Skills to teach:

CORE Phonics Survey – Record Form

1. Letter Names – Uppercase

Say to the student: Can you tell me the names of these letters? If the student cannot name three or more

consecutive letters, say: Look at all of the letters and tell me which ones you do know.

D A N S X Z J L HT Y E C O M R P W K U G B F Q V I

___/ 26

2. Letter Names – Lowercase

Say to the student: Can you tell me the names of these letters? If the student cannot name three or more

consecutive letters, say: Look at all of the letters and tell me which ones you do know.

d a n s x z j l ht y e c o m r p w k u g b f q v i

___/ 26

3. Consonant Sounds

Say to the student: Look at these letters. Can you tell me the sound each letter makes? If the sound given

is correct, do not mark the Record Form. If it is incorrect, write the sound the student gives above each letter.

If no sound is given, circle the letter. If the student cannot say the sound for three or more consecutive letters,

say: Look at all of the letters and tell me which sounds you do know.

d l n s x z j t y p c h m r w g b f q v

___/ 23

CORE Phonics Survey – Record Form

CORE Phonics Survey – Record Form

4. Vowel Sounds

Ask the student: Can you tell me the sounds of each letter? If the student names the letter, count it as the long vowel sound. Then ask: Can you tell me the other sound for the letter? The student should name the short vowel sound.

e _ _ i _ _ a _ _ o _ _ u _ _

l = long sound s = short sound

Record l on the first line for the long sound (letter name) and s for the short sound on the second line. If the student makes an error, record the error over the letter.

____/5 Long vowel sounds (count the number of l’s above)

____/5 Short vowel sounds (count the number of s’s above)

5. Reading and Decoding

For items A through G, students must read both real and pseudowords (made-up words). For the first line of real words, tell the student: I want you to read these words. If the student cannot read two or more of thereal words, do not administer the line of pseudowords. Go to the next set of items. Before asking the

student to read the line of pseudowords, say: Now, I want you to read some made-up words. Do not try tomake them sound like real words.

A. Short vowels in CVC words

___/ 5 sip cat let but hog (real)

___/ 5 vop fut dit kem laz (pseudo)

B. Short vowels, digraphs, and -tch trigraph

___/ 5 when chop ring shut match (real)

___/ 5 wheck shom thax phitch chud (pseudo)

C. Consonant blends with short vowels

___/ 5 stop trap quit spell plan (real)

___/ 5 stig brab qued snop dran (pseudo)

___/ 5 clip fast sank limp held (real)

___/ 5 frep nast wunk kimp jelt (pseudo)

D. Long vowel spellings

___/ 5 tape keylute paid feet (real)

___/ 5 loe bine joad vaysoat (pseudo)

E. r- and l-controlled vowels

___/ 5 bark horn chirp term cold (real)

___/ 5 ferm dall gorf murd chal (pseudo)

F. Variant vowels and diphthongs

___/ 5 few down toyha wk coin (real)

___/ 5 voot rew fout zoyba wk (pseudo)

CORE Phonics Survey – Record Form

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download