Shared Reading With Learners Who Are Deafblind: Instructional Materials and Learning Environments

Abstract

Introduction: Shared reading has shown the ability to enrich language development in children (Dowdall et al., 2020) and academic skills into adulthood (Mol & Bus, 2011). However, due to the complexities of deafblindness and its effect on communication, some individuals may not be able to participate in traditional shared reading. Although there is very limited research on literacy for learners who are deafblind (Bruce et al., 2016), with appropriate materials and supports within the immediate environment, shared reading has the potential to be a vehicle to support literacy and communication development for learners who are deafblind. Methods: A mixed methods online survey (n = 60) and follow-up interviews (n = 10) helped to explore how parents, teachers, and interveners curated materials and structured the learning environment for shared reading. Descriptive statistics and inductive analysis were applied to analyze quantitative and qualitative information. Results: Information on how materials (e.g., type, selection, and adaptations) and the learning environment (e.g., location of the activity, learner positioning, and instructional supports) were utilized to support learners who are deafblind during shared reading is presented. Considerations for materials selection and development included access needs (vision, hearing, tactile), communication abilities, interests, and previous experiences. The learning environment was often intentionally selected or designed with considerations for lighting, noise, and distractions. Discussion: Materials were individualized and personalized, with supplementary items added to support communication and comprehension of the text. Learning environments were literacy-rich and accessible to the learner. Future intervention research is needed on shared reading for learners who are deafblind. Conclusion: Because of the nature of deafblindness, careful planning and implementation are needed when designing materials and learning environments for engaging learners in literacy. Future intervention research is needed to demonstrate the effective implementation of individualized and personalized literacy materials and identify environmental considerations for learners who are deafblind.

Keywords

deafblindness literacy visual impairment shared reading

Shared reading involves reading partners who take turns reading. This form of interactive reading affords opportunities for the learner to express what they know about the text and topic and may include extension activities, questioning, and support for concept development and comprehension (Hanreddy, 2015). Shared reading has been shown to enrich language development in children (Dowdall et al., 2020) and frequent interactions around text can positively impact academic and language skills into adulthood (Mol & Bus, 2011). Additionally, it has long been regarded as a context to build vocabulary, language, and literacy (Mucchetti, 2013; Zucker et al., 2013). Shared reading provides the learner the opportunity to experience ideas at a pace that is comfortable and less fleeting than conversation, with opportunities for repetition and practice to support understanding (Cushman, 2016; Dowdall et al., 2020).

Even though extensive research exists on shared reading and its effect on language development, there is a scarcity of evidence on shared reading for learners who are deafblind, as well as a dire need for literacy research for this population (Nelson & Bruce, 2016). Deafblindness is complex. Its implications are multiplicative as the combined losses produce fragmented perceptions that affect the development of expressive and receptive communication, while also limiting access to sensory information that supports incidental learning and concept development (Nelson & Bruce, 2016). Communication is a critical area of development for individuals who are deafblind and can be supported through engagement in meaningful literacy activities (Downing, 2005).

☑Earn CEs Online

by answering questions on this article.

For more information, visit:

http://my.aerbvi.org/AER-Store/Publications/BKctl/ViewDetails/SKU/AER

Literacy for individuals who are deafblind extends beyond traditional reading and writing in print or braille, to include new literacies achieved through multiple forms of communication and technology (Luckner et al., 2016). Objects, pictures, speech, and sign language may be required in a single literacy lesson designed to meet the unique needs of one learner (Cushman, 2016). Objects are particularly important as they can serve as a bridge to understanding and a means of interacting with the text for an individual who is visually impaired (Bara et al., 2018).

McKenzie (2009) identified environmental characteristics, activities, and instructional strategies that support emergent literacy for learners who are deafblind. In her study, environments that were supportive of literacy were rich with age-appropriate braille and print materials, labeled in accessible forms, and organized into centers (e.g., library, writing center, mathematics center, storytelling center, and music center). The role of the environment is also an important consideration and includes the activity, location, and physical positioning of the learners. Additional components of the learning environment include the characteristics of materials and their positioning.

Luckner and colleagues (2016) shared strategies to support literacy development for learners who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing and deafblind. For students who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing they recommend using reading materials that are of high interest to the student, supporting vocabulary acquisition through conversation, and presenting opportunities for repeated reading. Specifically for learners who are deafblind, literacy lessons should include daily schedules, story boxes, experience books, choice-making opportunities, and interactive home-school journals. Additionally, parents and practitioners highlighted the importance of physical proximity as an effective strategy to support engagement during shared reading (Brum & Bruce, 2022).

This manuscript shares data from a larger mixed methods study on shared reading at home and in school for individuals who are deafblind. It looks to expand the current research on literacy for learners who are deafblind by exploring shared reading, a common literacy activity that takes place at home and in school with many learners, including children who are deafblind (Dowdall et al., 2020; Luckner et al., 2016; Mucchetti, 2013). The information in this manuscript focuses on the following research question: What materials, environmental supports, or considerations are being used during a shared reading with learners who are deafblind?

Methods

Following approval from the Institutional Review Board at San Diego State University in San Diego, California, this mixed methods investigation began with an electronic survey distributed through an organization of parents of children with deafblindness and state technical assistance projects. Initially, 147 survey responses were received, with 84 containing only limited demographic information, so were not included. The only discernable pattern to these responses was that the initial item on the first three questions was selected, and no other information was completed. This manuscript reports information from the 60 respondents (29 parents, 26 teachers, and 5 interveners) who completed the demographic information and at least one of the four open-ended questions. On the initial page of the survey participants received study information and provided informed consent. Shared reading was defined as occurring when an individual who is deafblind engages with a communication partner to take turns reading some form of text. Through a combination of open-ended, multiple-response, and single-response items, participants were asked to answer a total of 10 questions about the individual's communication skills, the connection between literacy and communication, and specific information about the materials, environmental supports, and learning strategies used to support literacy (see Table 1). The last item on the survey asked for consent to be contacted for a follow-up interview.

Table 1.

Selected Survey and Interview Questions.

Source	Question	Question type
Survey	What type of education or training have you received in deafblindness?	Multiple selection
Survey	How frequently do you engage the learner in shared reading?	Single selection
Survey	Please describe how you and your child participate in shared reading together	Open response
Survey	What types of materials do you use during shared reading time? (Un-adapted; Commercially adapted; Homemade; Other)	Multiple selection
Survey	Please describe the context or setting where the shared reading activity takes place.	Open response
Interview	What materials do you use during your literacy time?	Open response
Interview	How do you use the environment during your literacy interaction?	Open response

Interviews were conducted to acquire more in-depth information about shared reading for individuals who are deafblind. Twenty-five of the survey completers were randomly selected and invited for interviews. Of these, ten participants (seven parents and three teachers) consented to the interviews. The interview consisted of eight open-ended questions that asked participants to describe: (a) their learner's communication abilities, (b) literacy activities and their locations, and (c) instructional strategies, materials (including adaptations), positioning, and other supports used to facilitate the individual's participation and engagement (see Table 1). A graduate student conducted the 20–30 min recorded interviews, using a structured protocol. Each interview was transcribed by the same graduate student, with the first author reviewing 30% of the transcripts for accuracy. This article reports findings from the survey and interview on the instructional materials and the environment used during shared reading.

Participants

To be included in the study, participants self-identified as a credentialed special education teacher or intervener currently working with a student with deafblindness or a parent of an individual with deafblindness. All participants reported receiving some training in deafblindness (see Table 2). Additionally, shared story reading needed to be a part of their preexisting literacy routine. The learners with deafblindness were school-aged, 3–22 years old.

Table 2.

Participant Education or Training in Deafblindness.

	Parents		Teachers		Interveners		Full sample
Training	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Open Hands, Open Access (OHOA) modules	11	37.9	14	53.8	2	40.0	27	45.0
State deafblind project	20	69.0	20	76.9	2	40.0	42	70.0
University program	5	17.2	8	30.8	5	100.0	18	30.0
Self-taught	14	48.3	9	34.6	-	-	23	38.3

Note. N = 60 (n = 29 parents, n = 26 teachers, and n = 5 interveners).

Analysis

This investigation utilized descriptive statistics to analyze the quantitative closed-ended items in the survey (e.g., participant training, types of materials read), and qualitative analysis techniques to make sense of the open-ended survey and interview questions, through the inductive process of open and axial coding (Flick, 2019). A priori categories of materials and environment were used to identify codes across all questions. Codes were initially established by highlighting phrases related to materials and the environment from the open-response items and labeling them with initial impressions of what was being described. Survey and interview responses were open-coded individually by both authors by conducting an initial read-through to gain a sense of the data, a second reading to identify important segments of text and initial codes, and a third reading to revise existing codes and to add new codes. Next, axial coding allowed the authors to collaborate to reach a consensus on the identified codes before grouping codes to identify patterns and relationships among the codes related to the materials and environment.

Trustworthiness

Credibility measures for qualitative inquiry recommended by Brantlinger and colleagues (2005) were applied during data analysis of this study. This included reflexivity (the disclosure of assumptions and biases), peer debriefing (collegial review of results), and “particularizability” (detailed descriptions of the data). Both authors were experienced and trained teachers of students who are deafblind. They demonstrated researcher reflexibility by maintaining research memos about the emerging themes, addressing assumptions about the data, and having frequent discussions about how the materials and environment during a shared reading activity influence the experience of a learner who is deafblind. Peer debriefing was conducted with a colleague with literacy expertise, and particularizability was maintained with rich descriptions that included information directly from participant responses. Additionally, the quality indicators for interview studies related to participant selection, interview questions, recording and transcribing interviews, and confidentiality were met (Brantlinger et al., 2005).

Results

Materials

In the survey, parents, teachers, and interveners described the selection process, the materials, and adaptations implemented for learners who are deafblind during shared reading (see Table 3). Participants who mentioned material selection (26.7%) indicated that they selected materials based on attractiveness, sensory needs, text features, and complexity. A teacher described books that were attractive to the learner as those containing bright colors, and a “silly book with animal textures.” The text features of the book also influenced text selection, for example, patterns, rhythm, repetition, pause, and content that were familiar to the learner. The selection of materials was described as changing over time, with the books becoming increasingly complex in response to the learner's literacy and communication development. A teacher further described complexity in an interview, stating, “the books we used were a little less complex in that there wasn’t always text. We definitely introduced more tactile symbols over time as her vocabulary grew. So, there was a reduced complexity when it was a newer activity.”

Table 3.

Code Frequencies for Materials From the Survey.

	Parents		Teachers		Interveners		Full sample
Code	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Material selection^a	9	31.0	6	23.1	1	20.0	16	26.7
Material type^a
No adaptations	15	51.7	16	61.5	2	40.0	33	55.0
Commercially adapted	8	27.6	12	46.2	1	20.0	21	35.0
Homemade	15	51.7	14	53.8	4	80.0	33	55.0
Other	6	20.7	6	23.1	-	-	12	20.0
Adaptations^b
Objects	4	16.7	11	52.4	2	40.0	17	34.0
Pictures	10	41.7	6	28.6	1	20.0	17	34.0
Tactile	4	16.7	9	42.9	2	40.0	15	30.0
Large Print	6	25.0	3	14.3	1	20.0	10	20.0
Braille	2	8.3	6	28.6	1	20.0	9	18.0
Digital presentation	6	25.0	2	9.5	1	20.0	9	18.0
Dark background	4	16.7	2	9.5	-	-	6	12.0
CVI font	2	8.3	3	14.3	-	-	5	10.0
High contrast	2	8.3	1	4.8	-	-	3	6.0

Note. ^aMaterials N = 60 (n = 29 parents, n = 26 teachers, and n = 5 interveners).

Adaptations N = 50 (n = 24 parents, n = 21 teachers, and n = 5 interveners).

Table 4.

Code Frequencies for Environment From the Survey.

	Parents		Teachers		Interveners		Full sample
Code	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Partner	16	55.2	24	92.3	4	80.0	44	73.3
Setting	26	89.7	20	76.9	3	60.0	49	81.7
Time of day	8	27.6	7	26.9	3	60.0	18	30.0
Positioning	9	31.0	7	26.9	2	40.0	18	30.0
Material access	9	31.0	2	7.7	1	20.0	12	20.0

Note. N = 60 (n = 29 parents, n = 26 teachers, and n = 5 interveners).

Text

In the survey, participants described the texts used during shared reading by selecting all applicable options (Table 3), frequently reporting using commercially purchased text without adaptations (55%) and homemade text (55%) over commercially adapted text (35%). “Simple books” and “basic board books” were mentioned as the types of text used without adaptations and specific features of the books were described, such as using simple pictures to avoid visual overcrowding, limited text, repeated words and phrases, and topics that were familiar to the learner. For texts purchased with adaptations, participants also indicated in the survey they chose large print books, braille books, textured books, and books purchased from national organizations serving individuals who are blind (American Printing House for the Blind and National Braille Press). When interviewed, participants described using primarily commercially purchased books without adaptations (60%), and texts that were commercially adapted (60%), with less mention of homemade books (30%).

Homemade texts were described in the survey as constructed for and sometimes with the learner, containing specific adaptations that are directly related to the learner's sensory, physical, or cognitive needs. For an open-response survey item, two teachers described customized texts as, “books made with an appropriate size text (or [b]raille), simplified text, and clear, appropriate picture, with topics that usually relate to a class the student is taking” and “most books are made or adapted with little text and lots of pictures to compensate for his CVI [cortical or cerebral visual impairment] and profound intellectual disability.” When considering the construction of the book, survey participants described the representations as “meaningful to the student,” focused on learning topics, concepts, vocabulary, or a storyline. The representations included simple objects, textures, braille, pictures (simple and complex), and interactive components. For example, a parent wrote, “[H]is rocket book involves pieces he [the learner] created that he can take on and off the page.” Additionally, eight survey participants described “experience stories” as a specific type of homemade text. One teacher remarked, “[E]xperience books … [include] tactile icons of experiences the student had or will have.” Experience books were described as being about the learner's lived experiences, social situations, or future events specific to that person, often including pictures and tactile components. Seven survey participants also selected the “other” category of literacy materials and described the additional materials they used, including comic books, email messages, letters, alphabet beads, blocks with raised letters, stencil letter cards, and large print word-search games.

Adaptations

In the survey, some participants (n = 50) detailed specific adaptations they sought or added to a text. Participants described the different adaptations made to commercially purchased texts for learners who are deafblind (see Table 3). Adaptations mentioned included any modifications made to the physical text, including additional elements being added to the text. Visual adaptations included the addition of pictures (34%), large print (20%), and “CVI font,” (10%) described as adding red outline to specific words. Participants visually highlighted keywords to support vocabulary development. Tactile adaptations included braille (18%), tactual details (30%), and real objects (34%). Participants included information on the types of objects supplementing the text, including objects familiar to the learner, objects that the learner could hold, objects from a previous experience, and objects mentioned in the story. Additional adaptations included high-contrast (6%), dark background color (12%), and presenting the text digitally to easily provide the necessary adaptations (18%). This information from the survey was exemplified by a remark made by a teacher in their interview, “We made The Very Busy Spider, by Eric Carle. It had some tactile [drawings]. Each character had their own tactile representation and she could feel on the pages where the web was, and she really, really liked that.”

Environment

In the survey, participants described how the immediate context, or environment, contributed to the learner's experience with shared reading (Table 4), including the reading partner (73.3%), setting (81.7%), time of day (30%), and positioning (30%). In addition to teachers, parents, and interveners, reading partners also included: nurses, aides, teachers, typical peers, the learner's one-on-one support person, and siblings. Learners also engaged in shared reading with the speech-language pathologist and peers without disabilities. Further details on environmental considerations they made during shared reading included reducing distractions (70%), lighting (60%), and vision considerations (60%).

Survey participants described the setting for shared reading as quiet and distraction-free, with different locations depending on the time of day. At home, parents described shared reading occurring in the learner's room, at the dining room table, in the living room, as well as on the sofa. In school, the classroom locations described were more precise, such as in the reading corner, at the learner's desk, or at the table with the object calendar. Other settings and times in school included during speech sessions, in the corridor, in the life skills room, or in English class.

Positioning was an important environmental consideration frequently mentioned in the survey and supported by analysis of the interviews that included the proximity between the adult and the learner and the positioning of the reading materials. Survey participants stated that close proximity, or “sitting very close,” during shared reading was necessary for “engagement through touch” as part of an authentic and meaningful shared reading experience. Consistently, participants also mentioned positioning of reading materials to be in the learner's optimal field of vision and to reduce glare due to light from windows, lamps, or overhead lights.

Survey responses related to positioning also included material access, like using technology. Devices were used during shared reading to enlarge the reading material, such as closed-circuit television, screen readers, portable magnifiers, and tablets. Survey participants mentioned making electronic versions of books for a learner to access and advance pages using a mouse, including scanning books into a PDF format. Additionally, electronic books or “e-books” were used to enlarge text and for a learner to access on an AAC device or tablet. Lastly, participants also mentioned the use of audiobooks to promote and support access to the reading material.

The frequency that shared reading occurred was reported through a single-response closed-ended survey item (see Table 5). More than half of parents (51%) engaged their child in shared reading daily and 46% of teachers engaged their students in shared reading at least 4–6 times per week. In other open-response survey items, parents described shared reading taking place in the evenings, after dinner, and before bed, while teachers and interveners described “daily reading and comprehension checks,” shared reading during reading class, as well as during structured and unstructured times. During an interview, a teacher explained, “The student loves reading and wants to [read] as often as possible.”

Table 5.

Frequency of Shared Reading as Reported in the Survey.

	Parents		Teachers		Interveners		Full sample
Frequency	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Daily	15	51.7	6	23.1	2	40.0	23	38.3
4–6 sessions per week	4	13.8	6	23.1	1	20.0	11	18.3
2–3 sessions per week	5	17.2	5	19.2	-	-	10	16.7
1 session per week	-	-	6	23.1	1	20.0	7	11.7
Monthly	2	6.9	0	0.0	1	20.0	3	5.0
Never	3	10.3	3	11.5	-	-	6	10.0

Note. N = 60 (n = 29 parents, n = 26 teachers, and n = 5 interveners).

Discussion

When selecting materials for learners who are deafblind, Bruce and colleagues (2016) explain the need to consider functional vision and hearing, use of touch, and motor skills to individualize the materials for the learner's needs, which differs from personalized literacy. In personalized literacy, the focus is on the individual's own experiences and the student takes part in the development of the materials. In the current study, participants considered individualization when they selected books and also individualized by providing appropriate adaptations for each learner, especially those related to visual needs, such as enlargement of text and pictures, and visually uncluttered story books. Some participants discussed personalized literacy materials that were co-constructed with the learner, including experience books and daily schedules. When creating personalized story books, the concept of saliency applies. Bruce and Bashinski (2017) describe saliency as the adult attending to how the child experiences what is represented in the story and reflecting the child's perceptions in the literacy materials. When developing reading materials for learners who are deafblind, in addition to individualizing the materials, one should also consider personalizing by co-constructing literacy materials that feature elements of a shared lived experience. The shared reading of such personalized texts supports the learner to communicate about important memories.

Participants reported considering the learner's strongest sensory modality when selecting and creating shared reading materials. They integrated multiple communication forms to support the learner to make meaning, such as objects and tactile materials, pictures, and signs or sign language. Objects were additionally used to supplement text or to help clarify the sequence of a story. Bara and colleagues (2018) demonstrated that integrating 3D elements in text resulted in improved memory and comprehension for individuals with visual impairments. These tangible representations have the ability to reduce cognitive demand by sharing attributes with what they represent (Rowland & Schweigert, 2000). Bruce and Conlon (2005) described how an interactive journal, another type of personalized shared reading text, was created by using multiple representations to encourage the learner to use all of his senses and to support associations between concrete representations and symbols. Even when symbols are understood, objects that are associated with a personal experience have been integrated into personalized literacy materials to add interest or support engagement in the literacy event (Bruce et al., 2008). When selecting or creating materials for shared reading, it is important to consider integrating multiple tangible representations, including objects, that encourage the use of multiple sensory channels for communication and meaning-making for learners who are deafblind.

The use of instructional technology was evident in the survey and interview responses, including the use of braille displays, speech-generating devices, and tablets as a vehicle for text access and adaptation. According to Hartmann and Weismer (2016), instructional and assistive technologies can increase access and engagement with the content during shared reading for learners who are deafblind. When the presentation of the text has been further enhanced, such as through enlarged text and braille displays, information can be more accessible to the learner, thus promoting comprehension of the material (Spooner et al., 2015). Thus, utilizing technology can serve as an effective way to support the display and access of literacy materials for learners who are deafblind during shared reading.

In this exploratory study on shared reading for learners who are deafblind, teachers, parents, and interveners (the study participants) were the primary reading partners for the learners who are deafblind. Research suggests that the behaviors of the partner may be more important than their role in the learner's life. For example, when engaging in shared reading, the partner may use touch (e.g., hand-under-hand support) to maintain engagement with the learner or to direct their attention to a significant aspect of the text (Dowdall et al., 2020). Bruce and Conlon (2005) recommended that all reading partners use consistent vocabulary with the learner who is deafblind as consistent labeling and reading routines support mastery of concepts and vocabulary. Shared reading is a context for increasing vocabulary, which is a foundational component of reading (Mucchetti, 2013) and expressive communication. Partners in this study emphasized key vocabulary and may have also highlighted it visually in the text. When adults read print or braille labels, including labels of pictures in books, they support vocabulary acquisition (Bruce & Conlon, 2005). The behaviors of these reading partners, regardless of their role, likely were important in supporting vocabulary development and communication for the learners who are deafblind during shared reading experiences.

The immediate setting where the shared reading activity took place was an important aspect of the overall learning environment. Participants established consistent settings in which to engage in shared reading within the home and school, taking into consideration factors such as lighting, time of day, and background noise. In addition to the shared reading setting, the larger environment is also important. McKenzie (2009) observed that classroom environments were rich in print, but not always accessible to the learners, lacking the necessary adaptations for learners with visual impairments, including those who are deafblind. This issue was also evident in the survey data collected in this investigation related to environmental access. Material access was mentioned more frequently by parents (31%) than by teachers (8%) and interveners (20%). Additionally, the importance of physical positioning was also mentioned by parents (31%), teachers (27%), and interveners (40%). Across data sources, participants described physical proximity as being important to gaining and maintaining attention and to engagement. According to DeBruin-Parecki (2008), close physical proximity between the reading partner and the learner is needed to support mutual book handling and engagement. For learners who are deafblind, close physical proximity is essential for the implementation of coactive techniques, including coactive drawing and signing (Brum & Bruce, 2022).

Zucker and colleagues (2013) explain that frequent literacy experiences are essential and shared reading is just one of many literacy opportunities that can occur daily. According to Hanreddy (2015), learners with more significant disabilities may lack opportunities to engage in traditional literacy activities because of negative perceptions others hold about their level of communication or language and the individual's “readiness” to engage with more traditional print or braille materials that feature the use of symbols. In this investigation, most learners were reported to be engaged in shared reading at least twice per week (54%). Bruce and colleagues (2008) confirm that these repetitions of text experiences create opportunities for the child to anticipate, which will increase opportunities for expressive communication. Learners with deafblindness who frequently engage in shared reading may experience gains in communication as well as literacy, such as improvements in expressive communication and literacy skills.

Limitations

The primary methodological limitation of this study was the limited demographic information collected about participants. Collecting more comprehensive demographics (e.g., age of learner, years of experience of teachers or interveners, etc.) would have allowed for a better understanding of the responses of participants. A second limitation is participants were not required to respond to all items of the survey, which resulted in different levels of completion. A third limitation was the voluntary nature of the sample, which allowed for little researcher control and made the sample highly susceptible to bias.

Implications for Further Research

This study investigated how materials and the learning environment were utilized during shared reading for learners who are deafblind. Implications for future research include:

exploring the development, co-construction, and implementation of personalized literacy experiences that integrate multiple communication forms for learners who are deafblind;

investigating how the behaviors of the reading partner can provide opportunities to enhance vocabulary development and improve expressive communication abilities for learners who are deafblind;

studying adaptations to reading materials and supports within the learning environment (e.g., positioning and material access) that can be effective in promoting engagement with text and learner–partner interaction during shared reading for learners who are deafblind;

identifying how technology can serve as an effective means to present and adapt text for learners who are deafblind; and

examining the roles of collaborative team members in the selection of literacy materials, key vocabulary, and implementation of shared reading experiences.

Conclusion

The planning and implementation of an effective shared reading activity with learners who are deafblind is complex, requiring parents and school professionals to carefully consider the selection and presentation of literacy materials and the characteristics of the reading environment. Because this investigation was exploratory and measures of lesson quality or learner outcomes were not collected, direct recommendations cannot be made for improving the shared reading experiences for learners who are deafblind. This study explored the materials (type, selection, and adaptation) and learning environment (positioning of learner and reading partner, access to materials, and setting) for engaging learners who are deafblind in shared reading. Intervention research is needed to demonstrate the effective implementation of the ideas shared by participants in this study, including the selection and creation of appropriately individualized and personalized literacy materials, as well as identifying and modifying reading environments to best support learner engagement.

Footnotes

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.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Christopher Brum

References

Bara

Gentaz

Valente

(2018). The effect of tactile illustrations on comprehension of storybooks by three children with visual impairment. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 112(6), 759–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1811200610

Brantlinger

Jimenez

Klingner

Pugach

Richardson

(2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205

Bruce

Conlon

(2005). Colby’s daily journal: A school-home effort to promote communication development. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 2(1), Article 3.

Bruce

S. M.

Bashinski

S. M.

(2017). Promoting communication development in learners with severe disabilities: Evidence for the tri-focus framework strategies. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26, 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_AJSLP-15-0063

Bruce

S. M.

Janssen

M. J.

Bashinski

S. M.

(2016). Individualizing and personalizing communication and literacy instruction for children who are deafblind. Journal of Deafblind Studies on Communication, 2, 73–87.

Bruce

Randall

Birge

(2008). Colby’s growth to literacy: The achievements of a child who is congenitally deafblind. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 5(2), 1–12. http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol5/iss2/art6 .

Brum

Bruce

S. M.

(2022). Instructional strategies to support shared Reading with learners who are deafblind. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 41(0), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/02646196221077219

Cushman

(2016). Functional literacy. In Sacks

S. Z.

Zatta

M. C.

(Eds.), Keys to educational success: Teaching students with visual impairments and multiple disabilities (pp. 260–293). AFB Press and Perkins School for the Blind.

DeBruin-Parecki

(2008). Establishing a family literacy program with a focus on interactive Reading: The role of research and accountability. Early Childhood Education, 36, 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-008-0299-3

10.

Dowdall

Melendez-Torres

G. J.

Murray

Gardner

Hartford

Cooper

P. J.

(2020). Shared picture book reading interventions for child language development: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Development, 91(2), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13225

11.

Downing

(2005). Teaching literacy to students with significant disabilities. Corwin.

12.

Flick

(2019). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.

13.

Hanreddy

(2015). The relationship between communication and literacy. In Downing

J. E.

Hanreddy

Peckham-Hardin

K. D.

(Eds.), Teaching communication skills to students with severe disabilities (pp. 189–212). Brookes.

14.

Hartmann

Weismer

(2016). Technology implementation and curriculum engagement for children and youth who are deafblind. American Annals of the Deaf, 161(4), 462–473. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2016.0038

15.

Luckner

J. L.

Bruce

S. M.

Ferrell

K. A.

(2016). A summary of the communication and literacy evidence-based practices for students who are deaf or hard of hearing, visually impaired, and deafblind. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 37(4), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740115597507

16.

McKenzie

A. R.

(2009). Emergent literacy supports for students who are deaf-blind or have visual and multiple impairments: A multiple-case study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103(5), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0910300507

17.

Mol

S. E.

Bus

(2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021890

18.

Mucchetti

C. A.

(2013). Adapted shared reading at school for minimally verbal students with autism. Autism, 17(3), 358–3742. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361312470495

19.

Nelson

Bruce

(2016). Critical issues in the lives of children and youth who are deafblind. American Annals of the Deaf, 161(4), 406–411. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2016.0033

20.

Rowland

Schweigert

(2000). Tangible symbols, tangible outcomes. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16(2), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610012331278914

21.

Spooner

Kemp-Inman

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Wood

Davis

L. L.

(2015). Generalization of literacy skills through portable technology for students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(1), 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915586190

22.

Zucker

T. A.

Cabell

S. Q.

Justice

L. M.

Pentimonti

J. M.

Kaderavek

J. N.

(2013). The role of frequent, interactive prekindergarten shared reading in the longitudinal development of language and literacy. Developmental Psychology, 49(8), 1425–1439. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030347