materials, reducing visual clutter and increasing empty spac- es between items, presenting items in preferred visual field)
decide on students’ general emergent literacy needs.
Partner Assessment/Considerations Students’ receptive and expressive language learning may be affected by limited ability to watch and learn from others. Con- versational partners (including instructional staff) need to care- fully consider the complexity of language they use when inter- acting with a student who does not have typical vision. Partners who are more sensitive to idiosyncratic communicative efforts respond in ways that are more empathetic and understanding of how vision affects learning concepts and communication. Scripting the language of instruction can help build trust, antic- ipation of routines, and confidence to take risks in learning new tasks. As the team is considering how to integrate emergent lit- eracy instruction into a daily schedule, team collaboration is crit- ical to determine the methodology and routines for modeling language, particularly if the student does not have clear speech and will need some form of augmentative communication. The AAC Profile (Kovatch, 2009) and/or AAC Portfolio (VanTaten- hove, 2014) can be used to guide discussions about how team members are supporting various levels of communicative skill. The student’s ability to successfully participate in literacy ac- tivities may also be influenced by what the partner is doing, as well as the arrangement of the learning environment and mate- rials. When a student is experiencing visual fatigue, sometimes brought on by competing sensory input, the partner may rec- ognize that in some instances it will be more functional to use an auditory only approach, without requiring visual attention. Partners (whether peers or instructional staff) may need to posi- tion themselves or materials appropriately to address difficulties with distance viewing, light gazing or visual field deficits. Visual clutter (complexity) may be a factor either because the array is too complex or because items are too far away. To reduce chal- lenges with distance viewing, the team may consider: 1) tools for video modeling, 2) scripts for video modeling to maintain predictability, and 3) a quiet time/place for the student to watch the playback videos on his/her own. See 2019 Tip #2 Making Movies on your iOS Device for more ideas (http://www.aacinter- vention.com/page/180009852/180117546/Tips-2019#tip%20 2%202019). Environmental Assessment/Considerations: Environmental modifications during emergent literacy tasks may include re- ducing visual distractions of other people moving around the room, or auditory distractions of other people speaking while the student’s attention is focused on looking. Some students are unable to look and listen at the same time. Depending on the time of day, medication effects, and environmental distrac- tions, the student may need to have a visual break. During these times the student can primarily listen, such as listening to an electronic version or a partner reading the story he/she chooses rather than doing the visual hard work of looking at the pages/ text. Resources for considering the complexity throughout the
• Augmenting input - can help a student understand his/ her world Materials can be presented in combination with verbal de- scriptions, touch cues, gestures, object cues or symbols, pro- vided all communication partners agree to do so in a consis- tent way. Maximizing Engagement in Emergent Literacy Activities When and how to make adaptations for students who have CCN and CVI can be a difficult task. Just knowing the 5 recom- mended daily emergent literacy routines is insufficient. Interprofessional collaboration supports understanding how vision affects conceptual learning, how experiences drive lan- guage learning, and how critical self-directed engagement is to literacy learning. Daily emergent literacy activities should be integrated with exposure to and active experiences with sym- bol-based communication systems. Any adaptations intended to support students with CVI during literacy-based activities must be considered within a trifocus framework: learner, partner and environmental considerations. Learner Assessment/Considerations Using an AAC Profile (Kovach, 2009) and/or AAC Portfo- lio (VanTatenhove, 2014) can document the student’s use of multi-modal forms of communication for multiple functions, re- ceptive and expressive linguistic levels, current ability to operate a speech generating device, and social skills. Considerations for all literacy activities can include modi- fications based on how CVI characteristics affect the student’s ability to functionally participate. Team members should con- sider salient feature instruction and use of the CVI Characteris- tics: Teaching Strategies and Accommodations Planning Guides found here (http://cvi.bridgeschool.org/interventions/). To assess emergent literacy, The BRIDGE is an observational portfolio rating scale that can provide a window into emergent literacy tools and tasks. It measures students’ emergent literacy knowledge in the following areas: foundations of reading, foun- dations of writing, alphabet knowledge, phonological / phone- mic awareness, and oral language (related to literacy activities). The BRIDGE assessment was developed as an assessment tool for preschoolers with disabilities (Pierce, Summer, & O’DeKirk, 2009) and has been modified by Erin Sheldon (www.aacinter- vention.com / 2019, Tip # 3) to support learners of all ages, in- cluding students with complex communication needs. Another tool to help identify a starting point is the All Chil- dren Can Read: Literacy Skills Checklist found at: http://literacy. nationaldb.org/index.php/literacy-development-continuum/. This is an easy to use observational checklist that helps teams
9
October / November, 2019 | www.closingthegap.com/membership Closing The Gap © 2019 Closing The Gap, Inc. All rights reserved.
BACK TO CONTENTS
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator