See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283534949

Growth in language and literacy skills among children with disabilities in

inclusive early reading first classrooms

Article  in  Topics in Early Childhood Special Education · January 2013

DOI: 10.1177/0271121413477498

CITATIONS READS
18 607

3 authors, including:

Katherine Green Nicole Patton Terry

University of West Georgia Georgia State University
22 PUBLICATIONS   63 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   364 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Parent-Child Interactive Early Communication Study. View project

iCARE: Instruction of Children At Risk or with Exceptionalities. A Head Start Partnership. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Katherine Green on 07 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

477498
in Early Childhood Special EducationGreen et al.
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2011

Reprints and permission: http://www.

TEC33410.1177/0271121413477498Topics

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Article
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

Progress in Language and Literacy Skills

2014, Vol. 33(4) 249­–259
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2013
Reprints and permissions:

Among Children With Disabilities in sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0271121413477498
tecse.sagepub.com
Inclusive Early Reading First Classrooms

Katherine B. Green, MEd1, Nicole Patton Terry, PhD1,

and Peggy A. Gallagher, PhD1

Abstract
Quality literacy instruction in preschool can be critical to the future academic success for all children, but may be even
more so for children with disabilities. The purpose of this study was to examine progress in emergent literacy skills of
young children with disabilities, compared with their typical peers, in an inclusive preschool setting. Participants in this study
included 77 prekindergarteners with disabilities and 77 children with no identified disabilities who were matched based on
age, teacher, and school. Children were enrolled in inclusive Early Reading First prekindergarten classrooms. Results suggest
that although children with disabilities made significant gains mirroring the progress of their typical peers, as a group, they
did not catch up to the achievement of their typical peers. Children with disabilities showed the greatest progress in Print
Awareness and Recognizing Uppercase Letters. Implications for future instruction and research are outlined.

Keywords
emergent literacy, inclusion, disabilities, preschool

Learning to read is one of the most important skills for chil-
dren in our society. Preschoolers who exhibit well-developed
emergent literacy skills typically have better success in
all academic areas from elementary through high school
(Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2009). Conversely,
researchers have found that children who lack appropriate
early literacy skills are more likely to have difficulty acquir-
ing reading skills, read less, and receive less practice
than proficient readers (Allington, 1984; Snow, Burns, &
Griffin, 1998). Subsequently, children with difficulties in
emergent literacy skills may fall even further behind their
peers as they progress in school (Allington, 1984; Snow et
al., 1998). While receiving quality literacy instruction in
preschool is critical to the future academic success for all
children, it is especially so for children who enter school
developmentally behind their peers. With estimations that
more than one in three children experience difficulty learn-
ing to read (Adams, 1990; Shaywitz, Escobar, Shaywitz,
Fletcher, & Makuch, 1992), it is important that emergent
literacy skills be specifically taught in the preschool
classroom.
Many children with disabilities struggle to acquire emer-
gent literacy skills that are associated with later literacy
achievement such as oral vocabulary, phonological aware-
ness, and print and alphabet knowledge (Sulzby & Teale,
1991; Teale & Sulzby, 1986; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998).
Fortunately, researchers have found that emergent literacy
skills can be taught to and learned by young children with
disabilities (e.g., Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, & Beeler,
1998; Blachman, Ball, Black, & Tangle, 2000; Wagner,
Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994). Furthermore, additional stud-
ies show that preschool children with disabilities demon-
strate growth in emergent literacy skills when they are given
a structured literacy-rich environment (Katims, 1994). The
current investigation focuses on the language and literacy
outcomes of children with disabilities in such an environ-
ment: Early Reading First (ERF) classrooms.
As part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, ERF
programs focus on enhancing children’s early language and
literacy skills through curriculum adoption and/or enhance-
ment, classroom modification, and teacher professional
development (e.g., coaching, workshops, and classroom
support). The purpose of ERF was to prevent later reading
difficulties by providing young children, particularly
from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, with high-quality
1
Georgia State University, Atlanta, USA
Corresponding Author:
Katherine B. Green, Department of Educational Psychology and Special
Education, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3979, Atlanta, GA 30302-
3979, USA.
Email: kgreen16@gsu.edu

Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com by Katherine Green on November 6, 2015

250 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 33(4)
language and literacy-rich environments to prepare them
for school success.
Critical Emergent Language and
Literacy Skills and Instruction
Emergent literacy skills are predictive of later reading
success and therefore should be emphasized in preschool
instruction (Chatterji, 2006; National Early Literacy Panel
[NELP], 2008; Scarborough, 2001). In a recent meta-
analysis of studies on emergent literacy skills and instruc-
tion, NELP (2008) found that the skills with the strongest
predictive relationship with later literacy outcomes included
alphabet knowledge (letter names and sounds), phonologi-
cal awareness (ability to think about and manipulate sounds
in words), print concepts (knowledge of forms and use of
print), and oral language (ability to use and comprehend
language in communicative contexts). Moreover, the panel
found that specific instructional strategies and approaches
can promote the development of these skills, including
code-focused interventions (designed to teach skills related
to understanding the alphabetic principle) and language-
enhancement interventions (designed to improve expres-
sive and receptive oral language skills) in preschool and
kindergarten programs. Specifically, phonological aware-
ness instruction had the most significant and largest effect
size (0.82) of all code-focused interventions to later literacy
skills, supporting the importance of phonological aware-
ness in the early childhood setting. Overall, the findings
from the NELP report highlight not only the critical early
language and literacy skills that are likely to support future
reading success but also the wide variety of instructional
approaches that can be taken during the preschool years to
promote growth in young children with and without dis-
abilities.
Instructional strategies for early childhood classrooms
can be discussed in terms of Response to Intervention
(RTI). RTI is a multitiered prevention pyramid model
designed to detect, prevent, and address academic chal-
lenges of children. The primary or universal tier of RTI sup-
ports the academic needs of all children in the classroom.
Instruction in the universal tier may also be referred to as
evidence-based reading instruction (Vaughn & Fuchs,
2006) or high-quality reading instruction (Division for
Learning Disabilities, 2007). In early primary years, univer-
sal strategies may include whole-class instruction with the
critical emergent literacy skills (i.e., phonological aware-
ness, alphabet knowledge, print concepts, and oral lan-
guage), as well as differentiated early literacy instruction
such as varying the time, content, level of support, and scaf-
folding (Connor et al., 2009). Within the RTI model, Tier 2
interventions are designed for students who exhibit chal-
lenges or weak progress with regular classroom instruction.
Evidence-based Tier 2 strategies include intense, explicit,
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com by Katherine Green on November 6, 2015
and systematic instruction in homogeneous small groups
(Gersten et al., 2008; Gunn, Biglan, Smolkowski, & Ary,
2000; Jenkins, Peyton, Sanders, & Vadasy, 2004; Vadasy,
Sanders, & Peyton, 2005; Vaughn et al., 2006), as well as
progress monitoring of emergent literacy skills at least one
time per month (Mathes et al., 2005; McMaster, Fuchs,
Fuchs, & Compton, 2005; Vaughn et al., 2006). Students
who do not make adequate progress in Tiers 1 or 2 may
require more intensive, individualized daily instruction, as
found in Tier 3 interventions (Gillon, 2000; McMaster et al.,
2005). The movement between tiers is based on academic
progress throughout the school year. The children receiving
instruction in Tiers 2 or 3 may or may not have an individu-
alized education plan (IEP; Greenwood et al., 2011).
High-quality emergent literacy instruction is of impor-
tance to young children in the prevention of later eligibility
of special education, as little or no exposure to early literacy
experiences places children at risk of later challenges in lan-
guage and literacy (Chard & Kameenui, 2000; Shonkoff &
Phillips, 2000; Zill & Resnick, 2006). Furthermore, chil-
dren who attend preschool are placed at less risk of later
special education identification (Belfield, 2005), as well as
for learning disabilities (Conyers, Reynolds, & Ou, 2003)
than those who do not attend preschool. Yet, with the
expansion of inclusive placements within early childhood
settings (Odom et al., 2004), it is important to examine how
these placements effect the academic skills of children with
disabilities and their typically developing peers.
Early Literacy Achievement Among
Preschoolers With Disabilities in
Inclusive Settings
Many children with a variety of disabilities may experience
challenges with learning emergent literacy skills. Children
with language impairments, particularly those with delays
in vocabulary, comprehension, syntax, and phonological
awareness, are more likely to experience difficulty with
conventional (e.g., decoding, oral reading fluency, reading
comprehension, writing, and spelling) and emergent liter-
acy skills (e.g., oral language, print and letter knowledge,
and phonological processing; Bishop & Adams, 1990;
Catts, 1997; NELP, 2008; Scarborough, 1990; Wagner &
Torgesen, 1987; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Children
with cognitive delays (e.g., Down syndrome), autism, and
other developmental disabilities often have language
impairments that are characteristic of their disability. For
instance, children with autism may have difficulty with
spontaneous language, pragmatics, delayed grammar usage,
oral language skills, and vocabulary development skills
(American Psychiatric Association, 2000; V. Smith, Mirenda,
& Zaidman-Zait, 2007; Wilkinson, 1998). Children with
Down syndrome typically have stronger expressive
Green et al. 251
language skills than receptive skills, and have particular
challenges with phonology (e.g., phonological processes
and poorer speech intelligibility) and syntax (e.g., delays in
morphology and complex utterances; Martin, Klusek,
Estigarribia, & Roberts, 2009).
Inclusion within early childhood settings is a primary
placement for many children with a variety of disabilities
(Odom, Buysse, & Soukakou, 2011). Inclusion not only
refers to the placement of children with disabilities in the
same class as typically developing peers but also includes
the socialization and shared learning environments with typ-
ically developing peers (Division for Early Childhood/
National Association for the Education of Young Children,
2009). Within an inclusive environment, children with dis-
abilities should be provided with the supports and services
as necessary (Rafferty, Piscitelli, & Boettcher, 2003; Winter,
1999), as well as equal opportunities within the same class-
room (Odom et al., 1996; Peck, Odom, & Bricker, 1993).
Several studies have shown that children with and with-
out disabilities benefit socially in inclusive settings (e.g.,
Buysse & Bailey, 1993; Buysse, Goldman, & Skinner,
2002; Cross, Traub, Hutter-Pishgahi, & Shelton, 2004;
Gallagher & Lambert, 2006; Guralnick & Groom, 1988;
Jenkins, Speltz, & Odom, 1985). However, fewer studies
have explored how children with disabilities progress in
specific emergent literacy skills within inclusive preschool
settings. In a study examining language development and
social competence in inclusive and segregated settings of
children with disabilities, Rafferty et al. (2003) found no
differential impact on the effect sizes on language and
social competences between inclusive and segregated set-
tings for preschoolers with mild to moderate disabilities.
Holahan and Costenbader (2000) found that preschoolers
functioning at a higher level of social and emotional skills
performed better on developmental outcomes in inclusive
settings as opposed to segregated settings. In an examina-
tion of changes in language development for preschoolers
with autism and typically developing peers in segregated
and integrated settings, Harris, Handleman, Kristoff, Bass,
and Gordon (1990) found that all children, typically devel-
oping and those with autism, benefitted from a quality lan-
guage enriched inclusive preschool in the area of language
development. The instructional approaches consisted of
whole group, small group, and individualized instruction in
the inclusive environment.
Purpose of Study
One reason many children with disabilities may be placed
in inclusive preschool classrooms is to improve their aca-
demic outcomes. Therefore, it is important to not only
examine whether children with disabilities show significant
progress in social skills but also to examine early academic
areas, as well. There is a paucity of research regarding
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com by Katherine Green on November 6, 2015
emergent literacy progress in children with disabilities and
typically developing peers within inclusive settings. This
study will add to the literature base by examining progress
in emergent literacy skills for all children in inclusive pre-
school classrooms and to help determine whether a high-
quality language and literacy-based classroom can assist in
reducing the achievement gap between children with dis-
abilities and their typically developing peers. The purpose
of this study was to examine progress in emergent literacy
skills of young children with disabilities, compared with
their typically developing peers, in an inclusive ERF pre-
school setting. The following research questions were posed:
Research Question 1: How much progress did children
with disabilities experience in oral vocabulary, pho-
nological awareness, and alphabet and print knowl-
edge during the prekindergarten year, compared with
their typically developing peers?
Research Question 2: Did the achievement gap
between children with disabilities and typical peers
narrow in oral vocabulary, phonological awareness,
and alphabet and print knowledge over the course of
the prekindergarten year?
Method
Participants
The sample was pooled from a larger evaluation database of
652 children who participated in ERF classrooms. The data
were collected over 2 academic year periods. Of these 652
children, 77 had IEPs, spoke English as their first language
(M age = 50 months, SD = 6.14), and exhibited adequate
speech and language skills to perform the assessment tasks
without adaptations. This is the population we chose to
study. These 77 children with disabilities were matched to
77 children with no identified disabilities who also spoke
English as their first language (M age = 51 months, SD =
5.1). The sample consisted of 37% female and 63% male
participants. All children in the sample attended the ERF
prekindergarten program 1 entire school year. Children
were matched based on the school or child care site they
attended, then the classroom, next their age in months, and
finally their gender. There were no instances where matches
were not able to be narrowed using this hierarchy.
All children were enrolled in inclusive prekindergarten
classrooms that were participating in ERF. The 38 class-
rooms were located in public elementary schools and pri-
vate child care sites in a large, urban area in the southeastern
United States. Inclusionary criteria for classrooms included
an ELLCO Pre-K (M. W. Smith & Dickinson, 2002)
Literacy Environment Checklist average score of “basic”
(M = 3) for the Language and Literacy Environment items.
Because these participating sites received ERF funding, all
252 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 33(4)
sites served children who lived in poverty, as indicated by
the percentage of children participating in federal free and
reduced lunch programs.
The children with disabilities were receiving special
education services for a variety of disabilities commonly
diagnosed by the preschool years, including developmen-
tal delays, autism, pervasive developmental disorders–not
otherwise specified, speech and language impairments,
cognitive impairments, and Down syndrome. Although
each disability presents specific challenges, children in
this sample were all functioning at social, cognitive,
behavioral, and linguistic levels to the extent their IEP
teams had recommended they participate in language and
literacy instruction in the general education classroom
with typical peers. In addition, only data from children
who were able to complete the tasks according to stan-
dardized administrative format were included in the
analyses.
Measures
Oral receptive vocabulary. Vocabulary was assessed using
the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Third Edition
(PPVT-3; Dunn & Dunn, 1997). The PPVT-3 is a nation-
ally normed assessment and is appropriate for ages 2
through adulthood. On this assessment, children are pre-
sented with an array of four pictures of common objects
and actions. Children are asked to identify a target picture
by pointing (e.g., “point to a faucet”). Internal reliability
on the PPVT-3 is .92 to .98 (median = .95; PPVT-3; Dunn
& Dunn, 1997).
Emergent literacy achievement. A variety of early literacy
skills were measured with the Phonological Awareness Lit-
eracy Screening Prekindergarten (PALS-PreK; Invernizzi,
Sullivan, Meier, & Swank, 2004). This battery of assess-
ments was chosen because it can be administered individu-
ally, and because many of the emergent literacy skills can
be assessed quickly and reliably. This study included the
following subtests of the PALS-PreK: (a) Alphabet
Knowledge—Children are asked to name uppercase let-
ters, children who name 16 or more correctly are asked to
name the lowercase letters, and children who name nine or
more lowercase letters are asked to say the sounds that the
letters make; (b) Beginning Sound Awareness—Children
are presented with pictures and are asked to produce the
first sound for the words that begin with /s/, /m/, and /b/;
(c) Print and Word Awareness—Children are asked to
identify various text components while the examiner reads
a nursery rhyme printed in a book; and (d) Rhyme Awareness—
Children are presented with four pictures and are asked to
identify the two pictures that rhyme. Reliability ranges
from .75 to .93 for the four subtests (Invernizzi et al.,
2004).
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com by Katherine Green on November 6, 2015
Procedures
Importantly, all of the children in this study attended ERF
classrooms during their prekindergarten year. Classroom
teachers who participated in ERF were provided with pro-
fessional development to enhance children’s language, lit-
eracy, and cognitive skills. The teachers in this ERF
program participated in approximately 50 hr of profes-
sional development on teaching language and literacy skills
in the preschool classroom. They also had coaches and
weekly on-site support in their school.
The PPVT-3 was given to all children in the fall and
spring of their prekindergarten school year, per regulations
of the ERF program. In addition, although not required,
some participating classrooms used the PALS-PreK to cap-
ture additional information regarding the children’s early
language and literacy skills. When this information was
available, it was used in the analyses for this study.
Assessments were administered at the child’s school in
standardized format according to test manuals by trained
examiners. Data were analyzed to determine progress in the
language and literacy skills of both groups of children.
Results
To answer the research questions, two types of primary
analyses were performed. First, pre–post repeated measures
ANOVAs were conducted to examine progress within the
groups and differences between the two groups on the
PPVT-3 and PALS-PreK, as well as any interaction effects.
The PPVT-3 and each of the PALS-PreK subtests were
analyzed separately. Gain scores were computed on all
measures to examine how scores changed over the prekin-
dergarten year and to determine whether the achievement
gap between children with disabilities and typically devel-
oping peers was changed between the groups (see Table 1).
Progress in Early Language
and Literacy Skills
Between-group results. Using repeated measures ANOVAs,
the data were analyzed to determine the differences in prog-
ress on language and literacy skills from fall to spring
between the typically developing peers and children with
disabilities. As expected, all children exhibited progress
during the prekindergarten year. Furthermore, typically
developing children performed significantly better than
children with disabilities on the PPVT-3, η2 = .177,
F(1, 142) = 30.483, p < .001, as well as on all subtests of the
PALS-PreK: Uppercase Letter Recognition, η2 = .060,
F(1, 70) = 4.47, p < .05, Print Awareness, η2 = .171,
F(1, 84) = 17.269, p < .001, Beginning Sounds, η2 = .086,
F(1, 86) = 8.092, p < .05, and Rhyme Awareness, η2 = .167,
F(1, 80) = 16.089, p < .001.
Green et al. 253

Table 1.  Mean Group Performance and Gain Scores.

Children with disabilities N Fall scores (SD) Spring scores (SD) Percentage gained
PPVT-3 77 88.60 (21.12) 90.53 (17.9) 2.18
Uppercase letter recognition 36 13.69 (10.83) 18.36 (9.53) 34.11
Beginning sounds 44 4.09 (4.08) 5.20 (4.32) 27.14
Print awareness 43 3.79 (3.11) 5.95 (3.27) 56.99
Rhyme awareness 41 4.85 (3.04) 6.15 (3.40) 26.80
Typical peers
 PPVT-3 77 104.17 (16.28) 105.64 (15.52) 1.41
  Uppercase letter recognition 36 17.86 (8.69) 22.56 (5.79) 26.32
  Beginning sounds 44 5.68 (3.72) 7.91 (3.25) 39.26
  Print awareness 43 6.37 (2.74) 8.02 (1.86) 25.90
  Rhyme awareness 41 6.71 (2.70) 8.63 (1.85) 28.61
Note. PPVT-3 = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Third Edition. Scores on the PPVT-3 are in standard scores and PALS-PreK are in raw scores. Percentage
gained is the percent the students improved on the measure from fall to spring.

Figure 1.  Mean growth in standard scores on the PPVT-3 from fall to spring by group.
Note. PPVT-3 = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Third Edition.

Within-group results. The data were also analyzed to examine
how each group progressed on the language and literacy
tasks from fall to spring. On the PPVT-3, neither group
showed significant progress in standard scores from fall to
spring. However, unlike the PPVT-3, significant within-
group differences were observed for both groups of chil-
dren on several subtests of the PALS-PreK. All children
performed significantly better from fall to spring on Upper-
case Letter Recognition, η2 = .387, F(1, 70) = 44.278,
p < .001, Print Awareness, η2 = .456, F(1, 84) = 70.312,
p < .001, Beginning Sounds, η2 = .232, F(1, 86) = 25.938,
p < .001, and Rhyme Awareness, η2 = .262, F(1, 80) = 28.366,
p < .001. Although both groups showed progress on all
assessments, the effect sizes between pre- and post-assessments
were considered small (Cohen, 1988).
Achievement gap between children with disabilities and typically
developing peers. Given that children from both groups
showed significant progress on specific language and liter-
acy tasks from fall to spring, we next computed gain scores
to see how the children’s skills changed over 1 academic
school year, and whether the achievement gap between the
groups changed as well. There were no interactive effects;
thus, there were no significant achievement gap changes for
any measure for either group nor were there any signifi-
cant effects on within-subjects. On the PPVT-3, children in
both groups gained slightly less than two standard score
points by the spring (see Figure 1). Although significant
within-group differences were not found in mean standard
scores, there was a slight change from fall to spring narrow-
ing the performance gap between the groups by .46 points.

Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com by Katherine Green on November 6, 2015

254 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 33(4)

Figure 2.  Mean Growth in PALS-PreK Print and Word Awareness subtest from fall to spring.
Note. PALS-PreK = Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening Prekindergarten.

Figure 3.  Mean growth in PALS-PreK uppercase alphabet recognition subtest from fall to spring.
Note. PALS-PreK = Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening Prekindergarten.

Interestingly, a different pattern was found on the Discussion

PALS-PreK. Although children in both groups made prog-
ress from fall to spring on each subtest, the performance
gap between typically developing children and children
with disabilities narrowed on the Print Awareness subtest,
specifically by .51 raw score points (see Figure 2). The
gap widened on the Uppercase Letter Recognition, Rhyme
Awareness, and Beginning Sounds subtests by .03, .62,
and 1.12 raw score points, respectively (see Table 1; see
Figures 3–5).
This study had two goals. First, we examined progress in
emergent literacy skills in children with disabilities in
inclusive language and literacy-enriched prekindergarten
classrooms as compared with their typically developing
classmates. Second, we explored whether the achievement
gap was narrowed between the children with disabilities
and children without identified disabilities. Overall, the
results suggested that children with disabilities made sig-
nificant progress in emergent literacy skills, mirroring the

Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com by Katherine Green on November 6, 2015

Green et al. 255

Figure 4.  Mean growth in PALS-PreK Rhyme Awareness subtest from fall to spring.
Note. PALS-PreK = Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening Prekindergarten.

Figure 5.  Mean growth in PALS-PreK beginning sounds subtest from fall to spring.
Note. PALS-PreK = Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening Prekindergarten.

gains of their typically developing peers. Yet as a group,
the children with disabilities did not catch up with their
typically developing peers on any language and literacy task.
Importantly, the typically developing peers and the group
of children with disabilities varied in their individual
scores. Some participants with disabilities had higher
pretest scores than did the typically developing peers.
Furthermore, some children with disabilities exhibited
higher posttest scores than their matched peers. However,
as a group, the children with disabilities started further behind,
and the progress patterns did not allow them to catch up to
the achievement of their typically developing peers.
Not surprisingly, typically developing children outper-
formed the children with disabilities throughout the prekin-
dergarten year. However, children with disabilities made
similar gains in receptive vocabulary as the typically

Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com by Katherine Green on November 6, 2015

256 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 33(4)
developing peers. Given the nature of standard scores, it is
difficult to show progress on this measure over 1 school
year. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to find that children
with disabilities not only maintained their vocabulary skills
but also showed some progress over the prekindergarten
year while participating in whole-classroom language and
literacy instruction.
On the PALS-PreK, children with disabilities made the
least amount of progress on the phonological awareness
tasks, as opposed to their typically developing peers. The
children with disabilities never caught up with typical peers
on these tasks. Children with disabilities experienced the
most amount of gain with the print awareness and recogniz-
ing uppercase letters tasks. For the typically developing
peers, the least amount of gain was in print awareness; how-
ever, even on this task, the gains made by children with
disabilities did not allow them to surpass or match the post-
test score of their typical peers.
With regard to the achievement gap between the children
with disabilities at the beginning of the prekindergarten
year, there were no significant changes for any of the tasks,
as indicated by the lack of interaction effects within the
analysis of groups and measures. This finding was qualified
by an examination of the means. Children with disabilities
progressed from the instruction they received, but only nar-
rowed the achievement gap in oral expressive language and
print awareness, and the gap actually widened on the pho-
nological awareness measures.
These findings can be interpreted as support that chil-
dren with disabilities may experience significant gains in
orthographic skills (e.g., alphabet recognition and print
concepts) in inclusive settings. Meanwhile, phonological
awareness instruction may require more explicit instruc-
tion. Certainly, there is empirical evidence that suggests
that young children who struggle with phonological aware-
ness can benefit from explicit, small group, intensive
instruction during the preschool years (Elbaum, Vaughn,
Hughes, & Moody, 1999; Phillips, Clancy-Menchetti, &
Lonigan, 2008; Pullen & Justice, 2003). Explicit instruction
includes the teaching of the most efficient and effective
method possible (Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, & Tarver,
2004). Within this instructional approach, the teacher leads
the instruction, determines the instructional goals and pace,
chooses the appropriate materials, and provides immediate
corrective feedback to the student. Tasks may be broken
down into smaller skills and are sequenced to allow for stu-
dent mastery of prerequisite skills before moving on to
more challenging skills (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoon, 2000).
As with other research on this topic (e.g., Cross et al.,
2004; Harris et al., 1990; Holahan & Costenbader, 2000;
Rafferty et al., 2003), the findings from this study suggest
that children with disabilities benefit in language and emer-
gent literacy skills from participating in high-quality lan-
guage and literacy instruction in inclusive prekindergarten
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com by Katherine Green on November 6, 2015
classrooms. The NELP (2008) report stated that alphabet
knowledge, phonological awareness, print concepts, and
oral language have a strong predictive relationship with
later literacy outcomes. As children with disabilities experi-
ence difficulties when learning these emergent literacy
skills (Sulzby & Teale, 1991; Teale & Sulzby, 1986;
Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998), and given the increase of
inclusive environments (Odom et al., 2011), this study adds
to the research on academic benefits of children with dis-
abilities in inclusive literacy-rich environments.
Although positive, the results should be viewed with
caution. There are limitations to this study. Because this
study involved analyses from a much larger data set, infor-
mation was missing regarding the exact nature of special
education services the children with disabilities received,
the specific special education eligibility category of each
individual child and information on individual ethnicities,
and socioeconomic levels. This is a limitation that limits the
interpretation and generalization of the results. Another
limitation is that not all of the children in this study were
given the PALS-PreK assessment, as noted in Table 1.
Information regarding the missing pieces of descriptive
data would be beneficial for future research. Nevertheless,
this study is an important step in characterizing how chil-
dren with disabilities fare in language and literacy inclusive
classrooms. It is also important to acknowledge that the
children in this study were participating in ERF classrooms,
where they were exposed to high-quality language and lit-
eracy instruction and resources from trained teachers and
coaches who supported that instruction. Certainly, this is
not the case in all prekindergarten classrooms. It is not clear
whether such positive results would have been found in
classrooms without these kinds of supports in place.
Implications for the classroom from this study include
the need to explicitly address phonological awareness
skills to children with disabilities. These findings may be
interpreted in terms of RTI. For example, the results indi-
cated that children with disabilities benefited from partici-
pating in high-quality language and literacy instruction in
inclusive environments, such as would be seen in a Tier 1 or
universal instruction. Yet, some students, such as the lower
achieving students may require additional instruction in
phonological awareness skills possibly in small group set-
tings, such as a Tier 2 intervention. It is possible that had the
lower achieving students received explicit, small group, or
individualized instruction commonly found in Tiers 2 or 3
of RTI, the achievement gap between typically developing
peers and children with disabilities may have narrowed.
Examples of current RTI frameworks and resources for pre-
kindergarten include Center for Response to Intervention
in Early Childhood (CRTIEC, 2012; www.crtiec.org/),
Recognition and Response (Coleman, Buysse, & Neitzel,
2006), and Exemplary Model of Early Reading Growth and
Excellence (EMERGE; Gettinger & Stoiber, 2008).
Green et al. 257
It is also important to note that the skills the children
with disabilities had the most challenge with auditory-based
and more abstract concepts (e.g., beginning sounds and
rhyming awareness). The skills they performed best in were
orthographic and more concrete concepts (e.g., print and
word awareness and letter recognition). Being aware of this
information, teachers may need to have a greater instruc-
tional focus on teaching phoneme and rhyming awareness
tasks. Implications for future research areas include the
increased need to study emergent literacy skills in children
with disabilities, particularly in inclusive environments, and
examine what types of Tier 2 and 3 interventions might
affect the academic gap for children with disabilities.
In sum, the findings in this study guide us toward future
research that examines the academic implications of inclusive
environments for young children with disabilities. Children
with disabilities are increasingly placed in inclusive prekin-
dergarten environments. Furthermore, many researchers have
suggested that inclusion is socially beneficial for children
with and without disabilities (Buysse & Bailey, 1993; Buysse
et al., 2002; Cross et al., 2004; Gallagher & Lambert, 2006;
Guralnick & Groom, 1988; Jenkins et al., 1985). However,
there is a paucity of literature on the academic progress of
children with disabilities in inclusive environments. This
investigation adds to the literature on academic skills of typi-
cal children and children with disabilities on inclusive literacy-
rich environments. This study was an attempt to answer
questions about how all prekindergarten children progress
when participating in literacy-enriched environments, and
indeed they did show progress. However, their growth is not
without complexity, as some skills may be best approached in
other instructional contexts, specifically those related to pho-
nological awareness instruction, as the achievement gap
between children with and without disabilities widened for
these skills. Overall, we view these findings as supportive of
inclusive language and literacy instruction during the prekin-
dergarten year, and as a positive step toward understanding
the conditions under which children with disabilities can ben-
efit academically from participating in these classrooms.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the Smart Start/Education staff at United
Way Greater Atlanta, particularly Katrina D. Mitchell, for their
assistance with this project. We especially thank the children and
families who participated in this project, without whom this
research would not have been possible.
Authors’ Note
The opinions expressed in this article are authors’ and do not
represent views of the funding agencies.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com by Katherine Green on November 6, 2015
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
study was supported in part by the Developing Readers Early and
Mightily (DREAM) and Reinforce, Educate, and Develop Early
Readers Successfully (READERS). Early Reading First Program
grants were awarded to the United Way of Greater Atlanta (Grant
Nos. S359BO50040 and S359BO60041).
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Learning to read: Thinking and learning
about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Adams, M. J., Foorman, B. R., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998).
The elusive phoneme: Why phonemic awareness is so impor-
tant and how to help children develop it. American Educator,
22, 18–29.
Allington, R. L. (1984). Content, coverage, and contextual reading
in reading groups. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 85–86.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statis-
tical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washing-
ton, DC: Author.
Belfield, C. R. (2005). The cost savings to special education
from preschooling in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg: Pennsylva-
nia Department of Education, Pennsylvania Build Initiative.
Retrieved from http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?
open=18&;objID=381892&mode=2
Bishop, D. V. M., & Adams, C. (1990). A prospective study of
the relationship between specific language impairment, pho-
nological disorders and reading retardation. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 31, 1027–1050.
Blachman, B. A., Ball, E. W., Black, R., & Tangle, D. M. (2000).
Road to the code: A phonological awareness program for
young children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.
Buysse, V., & Bailey, D. B. (1993). Behavioral and developmental
outcomes in young children with disabilities in integrated and
segregated settings: A review of comparative studies. Journal
of Special Education, 26, 434–461.
Buysse, V., Goldman, B. D., & Skinner, M. (2002). Setting effects
on friendship formation among young children with and with-
out disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68, 503–517.
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G.
(2004). Direct instruction reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Catts, H. W. (1997). The early identification of language-based
reading disabilities. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 28, 86–87.
Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood. (2012).
Available from http://www.crtiec.org/
Chard, D. J., & Kameenui, E. J. (2000). Struggling first-grade
readers: The frequency and progress of their reading. Journal
of Special Education, 34, 28–38.
Chatterji, M. (2006). Reading achievement gaps, correlates, and
moderators of early reading achievement: Evidence from the
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS) kindergarten to
258 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 33(4)
first grade sample. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98,
489–507.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-
ences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coleman, M. R., Buysse, V., & Neitzel, J. (2006). Recognition
and response: An early intervening system for young children
at risk for learning disabilities (Full report). Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FPG Child Devel-
opment Institute.
Connor, C. M., Piasta, S. B., Fishman, B., Glasney, S., Schatschneider, C.,
Crowe, E., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Individualizing student
instruction precisely: Effects of child by instruction interac-
tions on first graders’ literacy development. Child Develop-
ment, 80, 77–100.
Conyers, L. M., Reynolds, A. J., & Ou, S. (2003). The effect of
early childhood intervention and subsequent special education
services: Findings from the Chicago child-parent centers. Edu-
cational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 75–95.
Cross, A. G., Traub, E. K., Hutter-Pishgahi, L., & Shelton, G.
(2004). Elements of successful inclusion for children with sig-
nificant disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Educa-
tion, 24, 169–183.
Division for Early Childhood/National Association for the Educa-
tion of Young Children. (2009). Early childhood inclusion:
A joint position statement of the division for early childhood
(DEC) and the national association for the education of young
children (NAEYC). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina,
FPG Child Development Institute.
Division for Learning Disabilities. (2007). Thinking about
response to intervention and learning disabilities: A teacher’s
guide. Arlington, VA: Author.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. W. (1999).
Grouping practices and reading outcomes for students with
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65, 399–415.
Gallagher, P. A., & Lambert, R. G. (2006). Classroom quality,
concentration of children with special needs, and child out-
comes in Head Start. Exceptional Children, 73, 31–52.
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L.,
Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2008). Assisting students
struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-
tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice
guide (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved
from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. (2008). Applying a response-
to-intervention model for early literacy development in
low-income children. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 27, 198–213.
Gillon, G. T. (2000). The efficacy of phonological awareness inter-
vention for children with spoken language impairment. Lan-
guage, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 126–141.
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com by Katherine Green on November 6, 2015
Greenwood, C. R., Bradfield, T., Kaminski, R., Linas, M., Carta, J. J.,
& Nylander, D. (2011). The response to intervention (RTI)
approach in early childhood. Focus on Exceptional Children,
43, 1–21.
Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. (2000). The effi-
cacy of supplemental instruction in decoding skills for His-
panic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school.
Journal of Special Education, 34, 90–103.
Guralnick, M. J., & Groom, J. M. (1988). Peer interactions in
mainstreamed and specialized classrooms: A comparative
analysis. Exceptional Children, 54, 415–425.
Harris, S. L., Handleman, J. S., Kristoff, B., Bass, L., & Gordon, R.
(1990). Changes in language development among autistic and
peer children in segregated and integrated preschool settings.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20, 23–31.
Holahan, A., & Costenbader, V. (2000). A comparison of develop-
mental gains for preschool children with disabilities in inclu-
sive and self-contained classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 20, 224–235.
Invernizzi, M., Sullivan, A., Meier, J., & Swank, L. (2004). Pho-
nological Awareness Literacy Screening PreK (PALS-PreK).
Charlottesville: University of Virginia.
Jenkins, J. R., Peyton, J. A., Sanders, E. A., & Vadasy, P. F.
(2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental
first-grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 53–85.
Jenkins, J. R., Speltz, M. L., & Odom, S. L. (1985). Integrating
normal and handicapped preschoolers: Effects on child devel-
opment and social interaction. Exceptional Children, 52, 7–17.
Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoon, E. (2000). Models of teaching
(6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Katims, D. S. (1994). Emergence of literacy in preschool children
with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 58–69.
Lonigan, C., Burgess, S., & Anthony, J. (2009). Development of
emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschool chil-
dren: Evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal study.
Developmental Psychology, 36, 596–613.
Martin, G. E., Klusek, J., Estigarribia, B., & Roberts, J. E. (2009).
Language characteristics of individuals with Down syndrome.
Topics in Language Disorders, 29, 112–132.
Mathes, P. G., Denton, C., Fletcher, J., Anthony, J., Francis, D.,
& Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically
different instruction and student characteristics on the skills
of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40,
148–182.
McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L.
(2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field
trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional
Children, 71, 445–463.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy:
Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC:
National Institute for Literacy.
Odom, S. L., Buysse, V., & Soukakou, E. (2011). Inclusion for
young children with disabilities: A quarter century of research
perspectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 344–356.
 Green et al. 259
Odom, S. L., Peck, C. A., Hanson, M., Beckman, P. J., Lieber, J.,
Brown, W. H., & Schwartz, I. S. (1996). Inclusion at the pre-
school level: An ecological systems analysis. Social Policy
Report: Society for Research in Child Development, 10,18–30.
Odom, S. L., Vitztum, J., Wolery, R., Lieber, J., Sandall, S.,
Hanson, M. J., & Horn, E. (2004). Preschool inclusion in the
United States: A review of research from an ecological sys-
tems perspective. Journal of Research in Special Educational
Needs, 4, 17–49.
Peck, C. A., Odom, S. L., & Bricker, D. (1993). Integrating young
children with disabilities into community programs: Ecologi-
cal perspectives on research and implementation. Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Phillips, B. M., Clancy-Menchetti, J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2008).
Successful phonological awareness instruction with preschool
children: Lessons from the classroom. Topics in Early Child-
hood Special Education, 28, 3–17.
Pullen, P. C., & Justice, L. M. (2003). Enhancing phonological
awareness, print awareness, and oral language skills in pre-
school children. Intervention in School & Clinic, 39, 87–98.
Rafferty, Y., Piscitelli, V., & Boettcher, C. (2003). The impact of
inclusion on language development and social competence among
preschoolers with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 467–479.
Scarborough, H. S. (1990). Very early language deficits in dyslexic
children. Child Development, 61, 1728–1743.
Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and liter-
acy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and prac-
tice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook
of early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp. 97–110). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Shaywitz, S. E., Escobar, M. D., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M.,
& Makuch, R. (1992). Evidence that dyslexia may represent
the lower tail of the lower distribution of reading ability.
New England Journal of Medicine, 326, 145–150.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neigh-
borhoods: The science of early childhood development.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Smith, M. W., & Dickinson, D. K. (2002). User’s guide to the
early language and literacy classroom observation toolkit.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Smith, V., Mirenda, P., & Zaidman-Zait, A. (2007). Predictors of
expressive vocabulary growth in children with autism. Journal
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 149–160.
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com by Katherine Green on November 6, 2015
View publication stats
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Prevent-
ing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Sulzby, E., & Teale, W. H. (1991). The development of the young
child and the emergence of literacy. In J. Flood, D. Lapp,
J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on
teaching the English language arts (pp. 300–313). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing and
reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. (2005). Relative
effectiveness of reading practice or word-level instruction in
supplemental tutoring: How text matters. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 38, 364–380.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). A response to competing
views: A dialogue on response to intervention. Assessment for
Effective Intervention, 32, 58–61.
Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carlson, C.,
Pollard-Durodola, S., & Francis, D. (2006). Effectiveness of
an English intervention for first-grade English language learn-
ers at risk for reading problems. Elementary School Journal,
107, 153–180.
Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonologi-
cal processing and its casual role in the acquisition of reading
skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–212.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Devel-
opment of reading-related phonological processing abilities:
New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent vari-
able longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30,
73–87.
Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and
emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848–872.
Wilkinson, K. M. (1998). Profiles of language and communication
skills in autism. Mental Retardation and Developmental Dis-
abilities Research Reviews, 4, 73–79.
Winter, S. (1999). The early childhood inclusion model: A pro-
gram for all children. Olney, MD: Association for Childhood
Education International.
Zill, N., & Resnick, G. (2006). Emergent literacy of low-income
children in Head Start: Relationships with child and family
characteristics, program factors, and classroom quality. In
D. K. Dickenson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early
literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 347–371). New York, NY: Guilford.