[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-601346-105":59,"doc-detail-601346-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","identifying-commonly-used-literacy-instructional-practices-for-students-with-extensive-support-needs-implications-from-a-control-group-analysis-abstract","Identifying Commonly Used Literacy Instructional Practices for Students with Extensive Support Needs - Implications from a Control Group Analysis - Abstract","","This study explored commonly used early literacy instructional practices developed by special education teachers for students with extensive support needs (ESN) within a randomized controlled trial. Fifteen teachers and twenty-nine ESN students were in a control group receiving literacy lessons in general education classrooms alongside peers as “reading buddies.” Results highlighted strongest control-group emphasis on vocabulary and comprehension, with substantial variation across and within states in other literacy components. Findings inform teacher preparation, district policy, and in-service training.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/identifying-commonly-used-literacy-instructional-practices-for-students-with-extensive-support-needs-implications-from-a-control-group-analysis-abstract/601346/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/identifying-commonly-used-literacy-instructional-practices-for-students-with-extensive-support-needs-implications-from-a-control-group-analysis-abstract/601346.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"hdkawk","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What was the focus of the study regarding literacy instruction?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The study examined characteristics of early literacy instruction that special education teachers commonly designed for students with extensive support needs (ESN).","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How was the randomized controlled trial organized for the control group?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"ESN students in the control group received literacy instruction designed by special education teachers, delivered in general education classrooms with peers acting as “reading buddies.”",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What did the results suggest about instructional emphasis in the control group?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Teachers in the control group placed the greatest emphasis on vocabulary and comprehension development, while other literacy components varied widely across and within states.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},601346,1792190868,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},3985747859855,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2022, 57(3), 272–286 © Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities  \nIdentifying Commonly Used Literacy Instructional Practices for Students with Extensive Support Needs: Implications from  \na Control Group Analysis  \nPam Hunt, Kathleen Mortier, Corrine Aramburo, Danielle Fleming, and  \nLakshmi Balasubramanian  \nSan Francisco State University  \nAbstract : This study explored the characteristics of commonly used early literacy instruction designed by special education teachers for students with extensive support needs (ESN) . The 15 special education teachers and 29 students were participants in a randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of an early literacy intervention developed for students with ESN. The students in this study were members of the study ’s control group and received literacy instruction designed by their special education teachers. The study was conducted in 14 elementary schools across 10 school districts and three states. Literacy instruction was implemented in general education classrooms with peers participating in the lessons as “reading buddies.” The results suggest that teachers in the control group placed the greatest instructional emphasis on vocabulary and comprehension development. However, there was wide variation among teachers both within and across states in their selection of other literacy instructional components to address. These findings are discussed in terms of their broader implications for special education teacher preparation, school district policy, and in-service training of teachers serving students with ESN.  \nSince the late 1970s, a person-centered ecological curricular framework has guided the selection of educational goals, assessment approaches, and instructional contexts for students significantly affected by intellectual disabilities, autism, or multiple disabilities (Alper, 2003; Ford et al., 2001; Hunt et al., 2012; Trela & Jimenez, 2013). With an ecological and person-centered approach, educational goals for students with extensive support needs (ESN) are not driven by a particular set of standards  \nDanielle Fleming is now at Fortune School of Education, Sacremento, California. Lakshmi Balasubramanian is now at the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University, California. This research was sponsored by Grant R324A150021 from the Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Special Education Research. The article does not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of this funding agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred. We thank the teachers, paraprofessionals, and students who participated in this research. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kathleen Mortier, Department of Special Education, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA [94132. E-mail: kmortier@sfsu.edu](94132. E-mail: kmortier@sfsu.edu)  \nand curricular sequences, but rather by the students’ achievement of individualized quality-oflife outcomes while they participate as valued members of their school communities.  \nHowever, with the emergence of the academic standards-based reform movement in the late 1990s, the role that an ecological curricular framework plays in curriculum development and instruction has been called into question (Ayres et al., 2011; Hunt et al., 2012; McDonnell et al., 2013) . The amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act  \n(IDEIA) in 2004 raised further questions. This federal law required all students with disabilities to participate in the general education curriculum and be assessed annually on their progress in meeting grade-level standards in English language arts, math, and science. Some educators and researchers were concerned that this mandated focus on meeting academic curricular standards would replace an ecological framework in guiding curriculum development. They envisioned a shift in the focus of educat","cbCaipljYYB0foTM","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipljYYB0foTM","pdf",729938,15,"English","# Abstract\n## Study purpose and design\n## Participants and setting\n## Instructional emphasis and variation\n## Implications for teacher preparation and policy","[{\"question\":\"What was the focus of the study regarding literacy instruction?\",\"answer\":\"The study examined characteristics of early literacy instruction that special education teachers commonly designed for students with extensive support needs (ESN).\"},{\"question\":\"How was the randomized controlled trial organized for the control group?\",\"answer\":\"ESN students in the control group received literacy instruction designed by special education teachers, delivered in general education classrooms with peers acting as “reading buddies.”\"},{\"question\":\"What did the results suggest about instructional emphasis in the control group?\",\"answer\":\"Teachers in the control group placed the greatest emphasis on vocabulary and comprehension development, while other literacy components varied widely across and within states.\"}]","Identifying Commonly Used Literacy Instructional Practices for Students with Extensive Support Needs - Implications from a Control Group Analysis - Abstract | PDF",1792092436,38]