Using Story-hased Lessons to

Increase Academic Engaged Time in

General Education Classes for Students with
Moderate Intellectual Disability and Autism
Ginevra R. Courtade
Amy S. Lingo
University of Louisville

Todd Whitney
University 0/Memphis

Abstract
The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of special education and general education teachers working together to develop and implement
story-based lessons on the academic engaged time of students with moderate intellectual disability and autism. A multiple probe across participants'
design was used to measure teacher implementation of steps of task analyses as well as student academic engaged time. Results of this study indicate
special education teachers can follow a 12-step task analysis to adapt books for students with moderate intellectual disability and autism and tbat general
education teachers can reliably implement a task analysis that incorporates an adapted book in their reading instruction for students witb moderate
intellectual disability and autism. Furthermore, this study provides evidence tbat may offer an effective way to increase engagement for students with
moderate intellectual disability and autism in general education classrooms during literacy instruction.

Keywords: shared story reading, read-alouds, intellectual disability, general education

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA,
1997, 2004) mandated that all students, including students
with disabilities, have access to evidence-based instruction
that is aligned to grade level standards and make progress in
the general curriculum. For many students with moderate
and severe intellectual disability (including autism), this
equates to instruction and assessment based on alternate
achievement of grade level standards in academic content areas. In addition, IDEA also mandated that students with disabilities are placed in the least restrictive environment appropriate to facilitate success, which translates to more students
with disabilities being served in the general education classroom. Data from the U.S. Department of Education indicated that, in 2008, 44% of all students with intellectual disability (ages 6-21) spent at least 40% of their day in a general
education classroom and 55% of students with autism spent
at least 40% of their day in a general education classroom
(Data Accountability Center, 2010). Adding to the complexity of the issue, IDEA (2004) as well as No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB, 2001) mandated the use of evidence-based interventions by highly qualified teachers. Teachers of students
with moderate and severe intellectual disability have been
challenged to meet those standards by teaching literacy skills
in different ways from those of the past (e.g., sight-word instruction). All academic instruction, including literacy in-

struction, must be designed to meet grade-level standards

while still meeting the unique needs of this population,
Although these trends impact all teachers, the issues may be
a particular challenge to special education teachers in rural areas. Rossenkoetter, Irwin, and Saceda (2004) reported a
chronic shortage of special education personnel in rural areas
that has led to a "crises of both quantitytoo few teacbers and
related services personneland qualityinsufficiently prepared
professionalsas they seek to meet the individual needs of infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities and their
families" (p. 277). Although there is a shortage of special educators in almost every category of disability in rural districts,
the most critical areas include teachers certified in lowincidence disabilities (Ludlow, Conner, &. Schechter, 2005).
Eurthermore, the lower number of students witb moderate
and severe intellectual disability in rural districts means special
educators may have students with diverse disabilities on their
caseloads (e.g., bigb-incidence disabilities and low-incidence
disabilities) which could lead to some providing services to students outside of their area of training or certification
(Schwartzbeck, Prince, Redfield, Morris, &. Hammer, 2003).
This can be seen in a recent survey conducted by Berry, Ptrin,
Gravelle, and Farmer (2011) given to rural special education
administrators and special education teachers. Results of the
survey found that 51% of administrators reported difficulty

Authors' Note
Please address all correspondence to Ginevra Courtade (g.courtade@louisville.edu)

Rural Special Education Quarterly -f Volume 32, No. 4pages 3-144 2013 American Council on Rural Special Education
Reprints and Permission: Copyright Clearance Center at 978-750-8400 or www.copyright.com

Rural Special Education Quarterly

2013

Volume 32, Number 4

filling special education teacher vacancies in their districts, with

autism and low-incidence disabilities being one of the most difficult. In addition, results showed 33% of the teachers reported
providing services to students that were outside their certification area, including several types of low-incidence disabilities
such as autism, cognitive impairment, hearing and vision impairment, emotional and behavior disorders, and severe disabilities.
One possible solution to address the issues of lowincidence teachers being understaffed and undertrained in
rural districts is to focus on collaboration between general
education and special education teachers. Downing and
Peckham-Hardin (2007) argued that the low number of students with low-incidence disabilities may make it "easier to
accommodate these students in general education classrooms without overwhelming the natural proportions of students with severe disabilities to those without disabilities. Instead of creating a separate classroom for only a few students,
it is more educationally and fiscally feasible to include these
students in already established general education classrooms" (p. 11). For this collaboration to be successful, special
education and general education teachers will need to
collaborate to provide effective, evidence-based practices designed to improve the academic outcomes for students with
moderate and severe intellectual disability in general education classrooms. The current study sought to address these
issues for literacy instruction through the use of shared story
reading. Specifically, special education and general education
teachers worked together to develop and implement storybased lessons to address the individual needs of students
with moderate intellectual disability through systematic and
explicit instruction.

Shared Story Reading and Students with

Moderate and Severe Intellectual Disability
A growing body of research has been conducted to address the mandates of IDEA by focusing on promoting literacy and meaning of texts for students with moderate and
intellectual severe disability (Browder & Spooner, 2006;
Erickson &. Koppenbaver, 1995; Kliewer & Landis, 1999;
Ryndak, Morrison, & Sommersein, 1999). Browder et al.
(2009) presented a conceptual model of literacy for this
population, which included two primary outcomes: (a) enhanced quality of life through shared literature and (b) increased independence as a reader. The authors argued that,
since tbe most important outcome of literacy instruction is
gaining meaning from text, "rather than postponing access to
books until students know bow to read or bypassing tbe use
of books for this population altogether, books and other
forms of literature become central to reading instruction at
all grades of a student's school career . . . If students are
unable to read, access to this literature can be provided by
reading aloud to students" (Browder et al., 2009, p. 272).
Shared story reading is an interactive read aloud that
promotes student active engagement rather than passive listening. Tbe shared story reading experience involves students purposefully and strategically interacting with both the
content of the book and the teacher before, during, and after
the read aloud. Eor shared story reading to be successful for
students with moderate and severe intellectual disability, ad-

aptations and accommodations are designed and implemented to meet tbe unique needs of this population. T'bis
includes adapting books to be accessible while still being age
appropriate, as well as developing story-based lessons that incorporate evidence-based practices (e.g., task analytic instruction, systematic prompting and feedback) into the lessons.
Hudson and Test (2011) conducted a literature review to
evaluate the effectiveness of shared story reading to promote
literacy for students with moderate and severe intellectual
disability, including students with autism. Based on the number of studies and quality of tbe research reviewed, they
found there was moderate evidence that shared story reading
can be used successfully to promote emergent literacy skills
for students with moderate and severe intellectual disability.
The small but growing body of research suggests specific benefits for this population include increase in responding of
students to the literature, increase in communication skills,
and promotion of listening comprehension (Browder, Mims,
Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Lee, 2008; Browder, Trela, &
Jimenez, 2007; Hudson &. Test, 2011; Jimenez & Kemmery,
2013; Mims, Browder, Baker, Lee, & Spooner, 2009).
Although previous research suggested that shared story
reading can be used successfully to promote emergent literacy skills for students with moderate and severe intellectual
disability, each study was implemented in a self-contained
classroom and instruction was provided in a 1:1 format.
What has not been demonstrated in the prior literature is if
shared story reading can be effective in inclusive settings
where the general education teacher and special education
teacher collaborate on the development and implementation
of the story-based lessons. Tbe purpose of this study was to
evaluate the ability of a special and general education teacher
pair to design and implement adapted, grade-level shared
story readings and to evaluate the effects of the implementation of the story-based lessons on increasing academic engagement for students with moderate intellectual disability,
including autism and Fragile X syndrome, in a general education setting. The following questions guided the research:
1. Can special education teachers follow a 12-step taskanalysis to develop an adapted book with 100%
accuracy?
2. Can general education teachers implement 10-step storybased lessons for students with moderate intellectual
disability and autism with 100% fidelity in a general
education class?
3. Does implementation of a story-based lesson in a general
education class increase student academic engaged time?

Method
Setting
The study took place in three general education classrooms in two districts in Southeast Kentucky. Two of the
classrooms were in a mid-size district in a metro area that
serves approximately 37,000 students. The third classroom
was located in a small rural district that serves approximately
4,700 students. Classroom A was a first grade general education classroom with 27 students, including three students
with IEPs. Fifty-eight percent of the students in tbe school
received free and reduced lunch. Classroom B was a third

Volume 32, Number 4

2013

Rural Special Education Quarterly

grade classroom with 18 students, including three students

labeled as FMD (functionally mentally disableda state
specific term). Eighty-six percent of the students received free
or reduced lunch. Classroom C was a K-1 split classroom.
There were 26 students, four labeled as FMD and approximately 13 with IEPs for speech-language or Learning Disability (LD) services. Thirty-five percent of students in the school
received free and reduced lunch.
The read-aloud instruction in each classroom was led by
a general education teacher. In Classroom A, the teacher
used a "round-robin" approach. The students sat on the
floor with their books (grade level reading series), and the
teacher chose students at random to read 4 to 5 sentences
aloud. As they were reading, the teacher gave the students
verbal cues to help decode unfamiliar words. The general
education teacher was the only adult in the room during this
time. In Classroom B, the general education teacher led the
literacy lesson, which included the teacher or students reading short stories or passages aloud. The students then answered comprehension questions about the passages on
worksheets. Students sat in desks that were grouped together

(3 to 4 students per group). The special education teacher or

a paraprofessional was in the classroom to provide support
during the lesson. In Classroom C, the general education
teacher led whole group read alouds of trade books. The students sat on the floor during the read-aloud, then moved to
tables for follow up activities. The special education teacher
was in the classroom to provide additional support.

Participants
The researchers recruited teacher pairs, consisting of a
general education teacher and a special education teacher,
based on interest from a training they attended on how to
embed effective instruction in inclusive classrooms. Three
teacher pairs worked with one student in each of the three
classrooms. Demographic information for the teachers can
be found in Table 1.
A teacher pair recruited each student that met the following criteria: (a) in grades K-5, (b) identified as having a
moderate or severe intellectual disability, and (c) included in
an age/grade appropriate general education classroom for at
least two academic core areas (e.g., reading, math, science.

Table 1.
Teacher Demographics

Degrees Held

Years
Teaching

Years Working
With Partner
Teacher

Elementary Ed
K-5

BA, MA

Sp Ed Teacher 1,
Classroom A

MSDK-12
Elem Ed K-5

BA

Gen Ed Teacher 2,
Classroom B

LBDK-12and
Elem Ed K-5,

BA

School
Counseling

MAED

Sp Ed Teacher 2,
Classroom B

MSD K-12

BA

Gen Ed Teacher 3
Classroom C

Elem Ed

BA

Sp Ed Teacher 3
Classroom C

MSDK-12

BACommunications
MA-SpEd

Teacher/
Classroom

Cerfification/
License Areas

Gen Ed Teacher 1,
Classroom A

Note. MSD = Moderate/Severe Disabilities; LBD - Learning/Behavior Disabilities

Rural Special Education Quarterly

2013

Volume 32, Number 4

Table 2.
Student Demographics
Student/
Classroom

Age/
Grade

Gender

Race

Primary Diagnoses
According to
School Records

Student 1,
Classroom A

7/1='

Male

Multi-racial
(Hispanic, Caucasian,
African American)

Autism,
cores in FMD
range

Student 2,
Classroom B

8/3^''

Female

Caucasian

Autism,
Epilepsy

Student 3,
Classroom C

6/K

Male

Caucasian

Fragile X,
FMD

Note. FMD = Functional Mental

social studies). Demographic information for the student participants is included in Table 2.
Student 1 attended a general education class for approximately 80% of the school day and received additional instruction in a special education setting. He was a verbal student who used visual supports to aid in communication, but
he would often communicate through cries and gestures
rather than using his words when frustrated or upset. He also
became easily frustrated and refused to transition (particularly from a preferred activity to work). He exhibited behaviors such as crying, kicking, dropping to the floor, throwing
nearby objects, taking off clothes, or getting away by crawling
under tables. He could read some sight words and short picture stories. His comprehension was well below his peers. Priority IEP goals included reading fluency, reading comprehension, spelling, addition up to 20, coin recognition, time telling, and appropriate transitions. Prior to intervention, when
the teacher read aloud or the students read in round robin
fashion, he would have the reading book out but would be
humming to himself, looking at places other than the book,
and sometimes falling asleep.
Student 2 attended a general education class for approximately 50% of the school day and received additional instruction (i.e., instruction on IEP objectives and review of
modified core content and related activities) in a special education classroom. According to her teacher. Student 2 was
"an enthusiastic verbal communicator" who initiated conversations with peers and adults but had difficulty working independently and needed many redirections to stay on task. On
some occasions, she would start breathing heavily and need
to be calmed and re-directed. If not calmed soon enough, she
would exhibit inappropriate behaviors, such as running
around the room, hitting teachers, calling teachers names,
and throwing classroom furniture and objects. She was below
grade level in reading and was unable to read independently
without an adult redirecting her to continue. She also
struggled with grade level concepts, such as main idea, infer-

ence, new vocabulary, and sequencing. Priorities IEP goals

for Student 2 included statement of simple grammatically
correct sentences, grade level concepts in reading and math,
and spelling. Prior to intervention. Student 2 had difficulty
attending to literacy lessons, and she tended to "check out"
during literacy instruction in a whole group format.
Student 3 attended a general education class for approximately 80% of the school day and received additional instruction of a specialized literacy program in a special education setting. According to his teacher. Student 3 was energetic and
loved school. He communicated with adults and peers using
limited vocabulary and by pointing, relying most on pictures
and gestures to communicate. He could identify some sight
words but was well below grade level in reading. Priority IEP
goals included improving receptive and expressive communication skills, pointing to words and verbalizing vocabulary, and
combining words to make simple phrases. Prior to intervention, when the teacher read aloud. Student 3 lacked focus and
did not fully participate in the reading lessons.

Literature Material
Instructors used grade level stories (e.g., Martha Speaks by
Susan Meddaugh), passages from reading series (e.g., Houghton
Mifflin Reading, 2005), and grade level informational text (e.g..
The Story of Jeans, Reading A-Z; http://www.readinga-z.com/)
in the classrooms. TTiey also used texts adapted to include symbols that might increase student engagement (e.g., picture symbols to accompany vocabulary words) and help the students focus on main components and ideas of the text (e.g., addition
of a repeated line in the text that summarized the main idea).
In addition, the instructors used comprehension questions
that were developed for each text.

Dependent Variables and Data Collection Procedures

The researchers collected data on the special education
teachers' implementation of a task analysis (TA) to adapt text
as well as the general education teachers' implementation of

Volume 32, Number 4

2013

Rural Special Education Quarterly

a task analysis to increase student participation in the shared

readings. They measured student participation as academic
engaged time.
Teacher dependent variables. The first dependent vari-

able was the number of steps of the Task Analysis for Adapting
Books and Comprehension Questions (see Table 3) completed by
the special educator. A data collector measured the number
of steps completed correctly by a review of the book or text.

Table 3.
Task Analysis for Adapting Books and Comprehension Questions
Did teacher
complete the
adaptation?

The teacher will:

Notes:

1. Plan an anticipatory set/attention grabber

What is it?

2. Highlight the titie of the book

How was it highlighted?

3. Highlight the author's name in the book

How was it highlighted?

4. Create answer choices for prediction question

if necessary

What were choices?

How did St. answer?

5. Make book accessible for student to open (if

student is not physically able to open the book,
create a picture symbol so he/she can request to
have it opened) OR Choose pages (by number or
title page) that student is to find.

How?

6. Highlight a sentence to be text pointed to. If text is

too smali, create a sentence with larger print for
the student to point to.

How was it highlighted?

7. Choose target vocabulary word. Highlight word in

text and create a picture symbol/word card to
use with student

What word?
How was it highlighted?

8. Create a repeated line* that relates to the main idea of

the story. Place the repeated line on pages throughout
the story. Print out the repeated line if text is too small.
Program aug com device if student is not able to repeat
the line verbally.* Choose a line for student to read aloud
during round robin reading.

What as the repeated line?

Use of aug com?

9. Make book accessible for student to turn the page (if

student is not physicaliy able to open the book, create a
picture symbol so he/she can request to have the page turned)

How?

10. Create comprehension questions related to the story.

Create picture/word choices for the answers to the questions.
*Easy Fact Recall *Easy vocabulary *Simple Sequencing
*Main idea *lnference

Questions?
Answer choices?
How will the student
respond?

11. Shorten/rewrite text if it is too long or too complex

12. Add pictures to support the story if necessary
Note. Adapted from Browder et al. (2009).

Rural Special Education Quarterly

2013

Volume 32, Number 4

The second dependent variable was the numher of steps of the

Story-based Lesson Task Analysis for General Education Teachers (see

Table 4) implemented by the general education teacher during

a whole group read aloud. A data collector measured the number of steps completed through direct observation.
Student dependent variable. Because the students in
this study were reported to be frequently off-task during read

alouds, the primary dependent variable for students was academic engaged time. Academic engaged time (AET) was a
duration recording of the target student's amount of time attending to a teacher-led group reading activity. The researchers defined AET as the target student being appropriately engaged in a reading activity that had teacher supervision, following rules specific to that reading activity or type

Table 4.
Story-based Lesson Task Analysis for General Education Teachers
The teacher will:

Teacher response:

Notes:

1. Provide an anticipatory set/attention

grabber
2. Read the title and give the target
student an opportunity to point to or
say the title
3. Read the author's name and give the
target student an opportunity to say or
point to author's name
4. Ask a prediction question and give the
target student an opportunity to answer
the prediction question
5. Give the target student an opportunity to
open book (a) without being told, then
(b) with prompts/ model as necessary
6. Point to each word in chosen sentence
while reading aloud and give the target
student an opportunity to point to chosen
line in the text
7. Give target student an opportunity to
point to or say a vocabulary word
8. Give target student an opportunity to
anticipate and fill in a repeated story line
9. Give target student an opportunity to
anticipate turning the page without being told
10. Give target student an opportunity to
answer a comprehension question

Note. Adapted from Browder et al. (2009).

Volume 32, Number 4

2013

Rural Special Education Quarterly

of activity, and meeting the requirement for participation in

the activity (e.g., instructions, expectations, and procedures
for task completion). Specifically, the researchers defined
AET as the target student (a) attending to (i.e., looking at)
the teacher, (b) making appropriate motor responses (e.g., following directions, manipulating materials), (c) asking for assistance in an appropriate manner, and (d) interacting with
peers or adults within the structure of the activity. (Examples
of AET were listening to the teacher, pointing appropriately
to objects, showing a peer his/her project, and responding to
teacher questions. Non-examples of AET were running
around the room, showing defiance to teacher requests, engaging in inappropriate use of materials, and not looking at
or attending to the teacher.)
Data collection. Prior to the story-based lesson, the observer would score the special educator's adaptation of the
text using the Task Analysis for Adapting Books and Comprehen-

ceived read alouds of grade level text in the general education classrooms. The researchers scored the Story-hased Lesson
Task Analysis for General Education and measured students'
AET After all 3 general educators and all 3 students showed
stable or decreasing data in baseline condition, the teachers
received the intervention in a staggered fashion. Once the
first teacher pair reached 100% on the TAs and a student increase in AET (change in trend and/or level) occurred, the
second triad also began to receive the intervention. Once
this triad showed the same improvement, the third triad began to receive the intervention. Because the student participants had shown low engagement in read aloud instruction,
the researchers did not set specific mastery criteria. Instead,
each triad received intervention as soon as the prior triad's
data suggested a functional relationship. Once entering intervention, all three triads continued story-based lesson instruction until the end of the school year.

sion Questions. Each step was scored as (a) completed step

Intervention
with no reminders (+), (b) completed step with reminder
from the observer ("), or (c) did not complete the step (-).
Baseline phase. Prior to baseline data collection, the
During the lesson, the observer would use the Story-hased Les- teacher pairs received a 2-day training on working with stuson Task Analysis for General Education Teachers to score the
dents with moderate and severe intellectual disability (includgeneral education teacher on implementation of steps to
ing autism). The training addressed general strategies, includkeep the target student engaged. Each step was scored as (a)
ing (a) access to the general curriculum, (b) data collection and
completed step with no reminders (+), (b) completed step
progress monitoring, and (c) behavior support. The training
with reminder from the observer or student ("), or (c) did not
did not include specific instruction related to literacy lessons.
complete the step (-).
During baseline condition, the researchers asked the general
education teachers to conduct read alouds on days that the tarAn observer calculated academic engaged time of the
get student was included in their classrooms, and they asked
student using two stopwatches. The observer started the first
the special education teachers to create adaptations for the
stopwatch when the teacher began the lesson and stopped
read alouds as they would typically do.
the watch when the teacher ended the lesson (or the observation ended). The observer then listed the time as the Total
Intervention phase. The teacher pairs chose the order in
Time Observed (Total). The observer started the second stopwhich they would enter intervention condition (i.e., volunwatch as soon as the student was exhibiting academically enteered). The second and third teacher pair did not enter the
gaged behaviors (according to the definitions) and stopped
intervention condition until the previous pair had reached
the watch when the student ceased engagement. The ob100% on both TAs at least once. The intervention involved a
server started and stopped the watch each time the student
90-min workshop during which the teachers were trained to
was engaged/not engaged. The observer then listed the total
adapt age-appropriate literature and implement story-based
time at the end of the lesson/observation as Academic Enlessons. The special education teachers received directions
gaged Time (AET). In order to compute the AET by percentand models for adapting books (for examples, please go to
age for each lesson, the observer used the following formula:
http://mast.ecu.edu/modules/ssid_ad/) and instruction on
(A) AET in seconds ^ (B) TOTAL in seconds = . _ _ x 100 =
the steps in the Task Analysis for Adapting Books and Compre.__% AET
hension Questions. They also received directions to complete
the Story-based Lesson Task Analysis for General Education TeachA second observer (another member of the research team)
ers and watched video clips of teachers completing storyobserved 15% of the lessons, scoring the general educator's
based lessons with similar steps. Einally, the general educaimplementation and the special educator's adaptations for
tion teachers received instruction on using the system of least
purposes of computing interobserver agreement. The researchprompts procedure to support the students during steps of
ers calculated agreement by taking the number of agreements,
the story-based lesson and to answer comprehension quesdividing it by the number of agreements plus disagreements,
tions. The first and second authors trained the teachers.
and multiplying by 100. The same second observer also collected AET data. The researchers calculated agreement on the
After each training session was completed with the
AET data by taking the shorter duration time, dividing by the
teacher pairs, the teachers used the TAs to adapt gradelonger duratioii time, and multiplying by 100.
appropriate literature (special education teacher) and planned
for the inclusion of the steps of the story-based lesson within
Research Design
the general education read-aloud (general education teacher).
During the intervention condition, the observers scored the
The researchers used a multiple probe single subject design across participants (Tawney & Gast, 1984) to examine
Task Analysis for Adapting Books and Comprehension Questions prior
the effects of training the teachers to use TAs on the impleto the implementation of the lesson in the general education
mentation of a story-based lesson as well as student academic
classroom and the Story-based Lesson Task Analysis for Gnerai
engaged time. During baseline condition, all 3 students reEducation Teachers during the general education lesson.
Rural Special Education Quarterly

2013

Volume 32, Number 4

Figure 1.
Teacher data.

Basdiim;

SBL intervention

30
^1

10

HO O
W

I
I

"1
SO

60

|2 **

20

A.

a
mo
90

so
70

J3
30

-S-Gen Ed Teacter

~A^Sp Ed Tocher

Sessions
10

Volume 32, Number 4

2013

Rural Special Education Quarterly

Interohserver Agreement
Three members of the research team collected primary
data: (a) the first author, (b) the third author (a special education doctoral student at the time), and (c) a research coordinator. They collected concurrent data for approximately 15%
of the observations. Interobserver agreement for teacher data
ranged from 8 0 % to 100%, with a mean of 97%.
Interobserver agreement for student data ranged from 85%
to 100%, with a mean of 90%.

During intervention, he was engaged between 27% and 43%

of the lessons, with a mean of 37%.

Social Validity

The researchers collected informal data from one teacher

pair (Classroom A) on the implementation of the intervention. When asked what went well during the lessons, the general education teacher reported, "The more repeated practice, he became familiar with the format, therefore making
him more successful answering the comprehension questions," "He soon didn't need instruction beforehand with
Results
[the special education teacher] and could answer most quesPercentage of Steps Followed on Story-based
tions correctly on his own," and "The amount of time enLesson Task Analyses
gaged and following along in the story increased over time
(less verbal prompting and gestures to look at the book)."
Figure 1 presents the percentage of steps the teacher pairs
When asked what didn't go well during the lessons, the genfollowed o n the Task Analysis for Adapting Books and Compreheneral education teacher reported, "If off task, it was difficult
sion Questions and the Story-based Lesson Task Analysis for General
Education Teachers. It is important to note that, if the special to get him to engage in the story." The special education
teacher reported, "Since we chose the everyday reading
education teacher did not make adaptations that would problock, it was difficult to have a different story adapted for evhibit the general education teacher from implementing a step,
ery day," and "We ended up doing 1-2 stories a week." Asked
the researchers omitted that step in the calculation for the genwhat
they would change, the teachers reported, "May have
eral education teacher. During baseline condition, the special
more
success if it was done earlier in the day vs. the end of
education teacher in Classroom B completed 10% of the steps
the
day,"
and "Will attempt to try it with a trade book."
of the Task Analysis for Adapting Books and Comprehension Questions. The special education teachers in Classrooms A and C
Discussion
did not complete any of the steps of the TA. Also, none of the
This study evaluated the ability of special and general edu3 general education teachers completed more than 20% of the
steps of the Story-based Lesson Task Anai^ysis for General Education cation teacher pairs to design and implement adapted gradeTeachers. During intervention, both of the teachers in Class- level story-based lessons for students with moderate intellectual disability and autism. Specifically, the results of this study
room A made immediate gains. In the two sessions of interindicate special education teachers can follow a 12-step task
vention, the special education teacher completed 80% of the
analysis to adapt books for students with moderate intellectual
steps of the TA and then increased to 100% of the steps for
disability and autism with all 3 special education teachers makthe remainder of the sessions. The data from the general eduing immediate gains from baseline to intervention. In addication teacher ranged from 60% to 100% with the last three
tion, the results indicate general education teachers can relisessions at 100%. The teachers in Classroom B also made imably implement a task analysis that incorporates an adapted
mediate gains after intervention. Both the special education
book in their reading instruction for students with moderate
teacher and general education teacher completed between
intellectual disability and autism with all 3 general education
80% to 100% of the steps with the general education teacher
teachers making immediate gains in implementation from
completing 100% during the last three sessions. The teachers
baseline to intervention condition. These results support and
in Classroom C also made immediate, but not as consistent,
extend the growing body of research on the effectiveness of usgains after intervention. The special education teacher coming story-based lessons by demonstrating that the general edupleted between 70% to 100% of the steps of the TA. The gencation teacher and special education teacher can effectively coleral education teacher completed between 40% to 80% of the
laborate on the development and implementation of storysteps of the TA.
based lessons for students with moderate intellectual disability
The researcher conducted maintenance probes for one
and autism in inclusive settings.
session in Classrooms A and B. All of the teachers completed
This study also examined the effects of story-based lessons
100% of the steps during those probes.
on the academic engaged time of students with moderate intelPercentage of Academic Engaged Time
lectual disability and autism in general education settings. Results of this study provide evidence that may offer an effective
Figure 2 presents the percentage of academic engaged
time for each student during the baseline and intervention
way to increase engagement for students with moderate intelsessions. During baseline condition. Student 1 was engaged
lectual disability and autism in general education classrooms
between 15% and 25% of the lessons, with a mean of 19%.
during literacy instruction. This adds support to the existing
During intervention, he was engaged between 37% and 67%
research that students with moderate and severe intellectual
of the lessons, with a mean of 52%. During baseline condidisability (including autism) can meaningfully participate in
tion. Student 2 was engaged between 0% and 58% of the lesgeneral education activities (Jameson, McDonnell,
sons, with a mean of 31%. During intervention, she was enPolychronis, Riesen, & Taylor, 2008; Johnson, McDonnell,
gaged between 42% and 81% of the lessons, with a mean of
Holzwarth, & Hunter, 2004; McDonnell, Mathot-Buckner,
66%. During baseline condition. Student 3 was engaged beThorson, & Fister, 2001; McDonnell, Thorson, McQuivey, &
tween 24% and 69% of the lessons, with a mean of 47%.
Kiefer-O'Donnell, 1997).
Rural Special Education Quarterly

2013

Volume 32, Number 4

11

Figure 2.
Student data.

Baseline

SBL Intervention

n
90
ma
7O
to
90
0
30
20

10

< so

2D
lO
O

SD

10

1 0 U 1 2 1 3 J

2D21

Z 3 M

Sessions

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the positive outcomes of this study, there are several limitations that should be addressed when interpreting
current findings as well as conducting future research pertaining to using story-based lessons in inclusive settings for
students with moderate intellectual disability and autism.
The first is the inability to establish experimental control
across all 3 participants. Although Students 1 and 2 showed
12

a consistent increase in engagement during the intervention,

Student 3 had a lower mean average during intervention (M
= 37%) compared to baseline (M = 66%) condition. Each
classroom arrangement was different. The instruction in
Classroom 3 took place in a large group with students sitting
on the floor. Student 3 was distracted in large group settings
and was not always redirected. There was also less interaction
between Student 3 and his teachers than in the other two

Volume 32, Number 4

2013

Rural Special Education Quarterly

classrooms. Student 1 sat next to his general education

teacher, with a high amount of interaction. Student 2 was often redirected by a paraprofessional or the special education
teacher. Future research will need to be conducted to establish a functional relationship between story-based lessons
and increasing academic engagement for students with moderate intellectual disability and autism.
The second limitation is in regard to the length of the
intervention conditions. Due to the third classroom entering
intervention toward the end of the school year, the length of
the intervention condition was shortened which possibly
could have affected student and teacher results. Although
classroom A had 11 intervention sessions, classroom B had 5
intervention sessions and classroom C had 3 intervention
sessions. Additional intervention sessions could have
strengthened the results of the study, especially for the academic engagement of Student 3. Future studies should consider a longer intervention condition (e.g., at least five data
points for each participant) to determine long-term effects of
adapted books on reading achievement.
The third limitation of the study is due to history effects
and other extraneous variables. The relationship between the
special education teacher and general education teacher
could have influenced the results. For example, teachers in
Classroom A seemed to have the strongest working relationship, and Classroom B had a teacher that was getting ready
for an upcoming maternity leave. The setting and delivery of
instruction in the general education classroom also could
have had an effect on results. For example, the general education teacher in Classroom A kept the student right next to
her and seemed to make an effort in making sure the target
student was participating. Classroom A was also the only
classroom where the special education teacher was not
present during the lesson. The special education teachers in
Classroom A and B were in the classroom during the lessons,
redirecting as necessary. Future research will need to control
for these extraneous variable to determine the effectiveness
of story-based lessons for students with moderate intellectual
disability and autism in the general education classroom.
The final limitation of the study is related to external validity of the multiple baseline design across participants. In

order to increase the external validity of using story-based lessons for students with moderate intellectual disability and
autism, future direct and systematic replications will be
needed. Furthermore, future research may include the effects
of using story-based lessons in inclusive settings on the academic learning of students with moderate intellectual disability and autism. This may include measurements of students'
incidental learning of unknown specific vocabulary and content through exposure adapted text.

Implications for Rural Educators

As previously mentioned, rural schools face a unique
challenge in meeting the individual needs of students with
disabilities due to a chronic shortage of special education
personnel (Rossenkoetter et al., 2004). Because more students with disabilities are being served in the general education environment, this not only effects special educators but
general education teachers as well. This intervention could
possibly address these challenges by offering rural educators
a practical way to include students with moderate disabilities
and autism in meaningful instruction during general education reading instruction. Ceneral and special education
teachers can coUaboratively develop a plan to teach selected
texts using a task analytic template based on each student's
needs. The special education teacher can adapt the gradelevel text and the teacher can implement the story-based lesson which could give the student meaningful learning opportunities while reducing the time a special educator is needed
to assist the student during instruction.

Conclusion
Despite the limitations, this study produced promising
results for the use of adapted books in general education
classrooms for students with moderate intellectual disability
and autism. The results suggest that special and general educators can effectively design and implement adapted gradelevel story-based lessons to address the individual needs of
students with moderate and severe intellectual disability
through systematic and explicit lessons. In addition, the
study suggests that the use of adapted books may be an effective method in increasing students' academic engagement in
general education classrooms during reading instruction.

References
Berry, A. B., Ptrin, R. A., Gravelle, M. L., & Farmer, T. W. (2011). Issues in
Browder, D. M., (St Spooner, F. (2006). Teaching language arts, math and science
special education teacher recruitment, retention, and professional development:
to students with severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Company.
Considerations in supporting rural teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(4),
Browder, D. M., Trela, K., S. Jimenez, B. (2007). Training teachers to follow

3-11.

Browder, D., Gibbs, S., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L, Courtade, G. R., Mraz, M., & Flowers, C. (2009). Literacy for students with severe disabilities: What should we teach
and what should we hope to achieve? Remedial and Special Education, 30, 269-282.
Browder, D. M., Mims, R ]., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Lee, A. (2009).
Teaching elementary students with multiple disabilities to participate in shared
stories. Research & Practice for Versor\s with Severe Disabilities, 33(1-2), 3-12.

Rural Special Education Quarterly

2013

a task analysis to engage middle school students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities in grade-appropriate literature. Focus On Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 22, 206-219.
Data Accountability Center (2010). Table 2.2: Number and percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, b;y educational environment and
state: Fall 2008.
Retrieved
from
https://www.ideadata.org/
arc_toc 10.asp#partbLRE

Volume 32, Number 4

13

Downing, J. E., & Peckham-Hardin, K. (2007). Supporting inclusive educaand personnel preparation for rural areas: Current status and future trends. Rural
tion for students with severe disabilities in rural areas. Rural Special Education Quar- Special Education Quarterly, 24(3), 15-22.
terly, 26(2), 10-15.
McDonnell, J., Mathot-Buckner, C , Thorson, N., & Fister, S. (2001). SupErickson, K. A., & Koppenhaver, D. A. ( 1995). Developing a literacy program
porting the inclusion of students with moderate and severe disabilities in junior
for children with severe disabilities. Reading Teacher, 48, 676-684.
high school general education classes: The effects of classwide peer tutoring, multiHoughton Uifflin Reading K-6 (2005). New York.- Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. element curriculum, and accommodations. Education and Treatment of Children, 24,
141-160.
Hudson, M. E., & Test, D. W. (2011). Evaluating the evidence base of shared
McDonnell, J., Thorson, N., McQuivey, C , & Kiefer-O'Donnell, R. (1997).
story reading to promote literacy for students with extensive support needs. ReAcademic engaged time of students with low-incidence disabilities in general edusearch & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(1-2), 34-35.
cation classes. Mental Retardation, 35(1), 18-26.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, PL 101Mims, P. J., Browder, D. M., Baker, J. N., Lee, A., & Spooner, F. (2009).
476, 20US.C. 1400etseq.
Increasing comprehension of students with significant intellectual disabilities and
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, PL 108visual impairments during shared stories. Education and Training in Developmental
466, 20 U. S. C. 1400, H. R. 1350.
Disabilities, 44, 409-420.
Jameson, J. M., McDonnell, ]., Polychronis, S., Riesen, T., &. Taylor, S. J.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110.
(2008). Embedded, constant time delay instruction by peers without disabilities in
Rossenkoetter, S. E., Irwin, J. D., & Saceda, R. G. (2004). Addressing persongeneral education classrooms. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 46,346-363.
nel needs for rural areas. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 276-291.
Jimenez, B., & Kemmery, M. (2013). Story-based lessons for students with
Ryndak, D. L., Morrison, A. P., & Sommersein, L. (1999). Literacy before and
severe intellectual disability: Implications for research-to-practice. Education Matafter inclusion in general education settings: A case study, journal of the Association
ters, 1(1), 80-96.
for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 5-22.

Johnson, J. W., McDonnell, J., Holzwarth, V. N., cSi. Hunter, K. (2004). The
Schwattzbeck, T. D., Prince, C. D., Redfield, D., Morris, H., & Hammer, R C.
efficacy of embedded instruction for students with developmental disabilities enrolled in general education classes. Journal of Positive Behavior interventions, 6, 214- (2003). How are rural districts meeting tli teacher quality requirements of no child left behin
Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from http://
227.
www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Policy_and_Advocacy/files/RuralTeacherQuality
Kliewer, C , &. Landis, D. (1999). Individualizing literacy instruction for young
Study.pdf
children with moderate to severe disabilities. Exceptional Cliiidren, 66, 85-100.
Tawney, J. W. & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single-subject researcd in special education.
Ludlow, B., Conner, D., & Schechter, J. (2005). Low incidence disabilities
Columbus, OH: Merrill.

14

Volume 32, Number 4

2013

Rural Special Education Quarterly

Copyright of Rural Special Education Quarterly is the property of ACRES and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.