The Promise of Comprehensive Early Reading Instruction for Children With Autism and Recommendations for Future Directions

Abstract

Purpose Children with autism have an increased likelihood of reading difficulties. The reasons for this are numerous and varied, but many children with autism can learn to read when they are provided with evidence-based early reading instruction. Method Here, we provide an overview of some of the factors that impact early reading development for children with autism and a rationale for the provision of comprehensive early reading instruction consistent with the recommendations of the National Reading Panel (NRP). We discuss research on NRP instruction for children with autism, including some of our own empirical studies. We also discuss some areas of research that were not emphasized by the NRP but that we view as important. We offer recommendations that extend beyond NRP guidelines in order to advance knowledge and improve practice. Conclusions Comprehensive early reading instruction holds great promise for children with autism, but there are gaps in our understanding that need to be addressed. These include the most effective method(s) for tailoring reading instruction to the needs of the individual while optimizing delivery to small groups of children, supporting skills and making other accommodations not outlined by the NRP, and consideration of bilingualism and of reading instruction in languages other than English, among other issues. While our focus in this review article is early reading instruction for children with autism who use oral language, we acknowledge that there is a major gap in the literature concerning reading instruction for those who do not use oral language. We hope that this review article will be helpful to clinicians, educators, and researchers alike, as well as children with autism and their families, friends, and support networks.

ABRACADABRA literacy instruction for children with Down syndrome via telepractice during COVID‐19: A pilot study

“…Children with neurodevelopmental disabilities, specifically autism, were represented in only one study (Bailey et al, 2017). The benefits of ABRA for children with autism have been replicated across several other studies not included in the meta‐analysis (Arciuli & Bailey, 2019, 2021; Bailey et al, 2017). This evidence, combined with previous research exploring computer‐assisted instruction for children with Down syndrome, suggests that ABRA may be an effective comprehensive literacy intervention for children with neurodevelopmental disabilities more generally.…”

Literacy instruction for autistic children who speak languages other than English

“…None of the included studies investigated comprehensive instruction methods targeting multiple aspects of reading and writing (for discussion of the importance of comprehensive literacy instruction for children with autism see Arciuli & Bailey, 2021). Such approaches appear to be effective, at least based on the English-language research (Bailey & Arciuli, 2020), and should be investigated in future research involving autistic children who are non-English speakers.…”

“…Thus, some children with autism have a higher likelihood of literacy difficulties by comparison with non-autistic peers. 1 As discussed by Arciuli and Bailey (2021), among others, monolingual speakers of English are only one subset of the world's population and many autistic children are bilingual, biliterate and/or speak languages other than English. Anglocentrism and alphabet-centric approaches in much of the research on autism and on literacy leave many questions unanswered with regard to how best to support autistic children's literacy development around the globe.…”

Evidence‐based practice: the use and abuse of research

“…Both Arciuli and Bailey (2021) and Trembath et al (2015) are studies relating to autism, with no indication in either study that any of the learners had severe or complex learning disabilities. It is therefore impossible to draw conclusions from either.…”