Learning at my own pace: visual aids and easy reading for students on the spectrum

Introduction: Towards accessible, visual literacy adapted to the pace of the autistic student

Accessible literacy requires breaking down reading into observable components: decoding, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and inference. In autistic students, these dimensions do not necessarily develop at the same pace; some read words accurately but struggle to construct meaning, while others require initial instruction in phonemic awareness and vocabulary (Flykt & Gustafsson, 2025; Wang, 2025) . Recent literature converges on three conditions: individually selected visual supports, specific instruction, and opportunities to control response rate. Interventions with pictorial or graphic representations show positive effects on comprehension, although these are primarily based on single-case studies (Lee et al., 2025) . This paper examines how to combine these supports with systematic instruction, adaptive technologies, and student participation, without confusing accessibility with indiscriminate simplification.

Visual representations and the construction of reading comprehension.

Images, graphics, and illustrated books as mediators of meaning.

Pictorial or graphic representations can make visible relationships that the text leaves implicit, such as sequences, attributes, actions, and causal connections. A meta-analysis of five single-case experimental studies reported a moderate to strong overall effect on reading comprehension, with Tau-U = 0.85, although results varied according to modality, age, context, and the measure used (Lee et al., 2025) . Paper-based interventions produce more consistent results, while technology-based interventions show strong but variable effects (Lee et al., 2025) . This difference suggests selecting the format based on its suitability to the task and the cognitive profile, rather than assuming that a screen is automatically more accessible.

Images work best when explicitly linked to comprehension words and questions. In a preliminary study of picture books, altering the background did not produce a statistically significant difference in the learning of autistic children, although it did affect the performance of non-autistic children (Lian et al., 2026) . This finding limits the idea that adding visual context always improves comprehension. An image can capture attention, but it can also introduce irrelevant information or compete with the text. Therefore, teachers should check what the student is looking at, what relationship they establish with the sentence, and whether they can transfer that relationship to another page or text.

Visualization, vocabulary and activation of prior knowledge.

Visualization requires teaching students to transform words into mental representations, not just showing illustrations. The Visualization and Verbalization intervention improved comprehension in autistic children aged eight to three with specific comprehension difficulties, while the waitlist group did not show the same improvement; verbal memory predicted reading performance ( Beckerson et al., 2024) . These results link comprehension to linguistic and mnemonic processes, so visual support should be accompanied by guided conversation, information retrieval, and inference-making.

Vocabulary can benefit from images, objects, gestures, and situated examples. A study with three elementary school students reported improvements in vocabulary learning and retention after using visual aids, although its small sample size and pretest-posttest design limit causal attribution (Thuy et al., 2024) . Activating prior knowledge should be brief and functional: identifying characters, anticipating an action, or relating a word to a known experience. Teaching strategies described for students in grades four through six include predicting, asking questions, clarifying, and summarizing, along with modeling and dialogue (Flykt & Gustafsson, 2025) . Thus, the image becomes an input for language, not a substitute for reading.

Visual schedules, sequences and supports for autonomy during reading.

Visual timetables organize actions through images and text, anticipating the next step and allowing students to follow a sequence of tasks with less dependence on an adult (Liang, 2024) . Applied to reading, they can show a sequence such as choosing the text, observing the title, reading a passage, answering the question, reviewing the text, and asking a question. The sequence should be visible, stable, and modifiable when the activity changes. The teacher should show students how to consult the timetable and how to mark each step, rather than simply displaying it without instruction.

Autonomy does not equate to working without interaction. A schedule can reduce uncertainty and free up resources for the student to focus on meaning, while graduated support is withdrawn once the response stabilizes. In multilingual students with extensive support needs, a package combining shared reading, task analysis, visual supports, a minimal aid system, and support in the student’s best native language showed exploratory improvements in consonant-vowel-consonant word pronunciation, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and generalization (Frates et al., 2024) . The next question is how to translate these visual mediators into explicit skills instruction, preventing the student from becoming indefinitely dependent on cues.

Clean and differentiated teaching of reading skills.

Shared reading, task analysis, and graded support systems.

Explicit instruction breaks down reading behavior, models the procedure, offers guided practice, and checks the response before withdrawing support. A review of school interventions identifies structured instruction, visual supports, and explicit word instruction as recurring strategies in various areas of reading (McClain et al., 2025) . In shared reading, the adult can point to words, verbalize an inference, ask a question, and ask the student to justify their answer. This format maintains access to the full text while working on a specific skill.

Task analysis allows for the sequencing of operations that often remain implicit: locating information, associating pronouns with referents, ordering events, or explaining a cause. In the study with multilingual students, the functional relationship between the instruction package and CVC word acquisition was replicated in three participants, but the design does not allow for direct generalization to all autistic readers (Frates et al., 2024) . The system of graded aids should begin with the minimum effective prompt, increase only when necessary, and record the level of support the student required. A visual aid should not become a covert response that prevents the demonstration of comprehension.

Fluency, repeated reading, and performance feedback

Reading fluency combines accuracy, rhythm, and prosody, but improving it alone does not guarantee deep comprehension. In a multiple baseline design with three autistic students from Saudi Arabia, repeated reading coupled with performance feedback increased correct words per minute and reduced errors per minute (Al Naji et al., 2024) . The study supports brief, repeated practice with concrete performance feedback, although its single-subject design and specific population limit extrapolation. Feedback should describe what was read correctly, which word or phrase requires revision, and what strategy will be applied next.

Repetition becomes more valuable when the purpose of each reading changes. A first reading might focus on decoding, a second on word meaning, and a third on responding or summarizing. A systematic review of computer-assisted interventions also identifies fluency, phonics, and comprehension as components that can be combined with evidence-based teaching strategies (Kurzeja et al., 2024) . The pace of practice should be adjusted to the student’s attention, fatigue, and communication style, without making speed the sole indicator of progress.

Vocabulary, emergent literacy and transfer to different linguistic contexts.

Emergent literacy includes phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, vocabulary, listening comprehension, and engagement with texts. Ten early childhood educators described general knowledge about literacy and autism but noted gaps in phonemic awareness and familiarity with research-supported strategies (Wang, 2025) . Teacher training should connect knowledge of reading development with concrete procedures for modeling, practice, and assessment. Prioritizing only social or behavioral goals may reduce the time dedicated to academic instruction.

Transfer requires presenting words and structures in more than one activity, text, person, and language. The package applied to multilingual students incorporated support in the native language and produced changes in generalization in addition to the acquisition of CVC words (Frates et al., 2024) . This result supports the use of familiar linguistic resources but does not justify assuming that a skill demonstrated in one language will automatically appear in another. In English as a second language, teachers describe obstacles related to communication, sensory processing, abstract thinking, and linguistic structure, along with the usefulness of visual supports, scaffolding, and multisensory approaches (Khalid et al., 2024) . Assessment should verify the skill in different communicative contexts before declaring it consolidated.

Assistive technologies for learning at one’s own pace.

Computer-assisted instruction and structured reading practice

Computer-assisted instruction allows for the consistent presentation of stimuli, repeated testing, and adjustment of response time. A systematic review identified 47 studies of commercial programs specifically designed for individuals with autism or intellectual disabilities; 34 reported positive results, although the methodological quality was often low and the description of the interventions was incomplete (Kurzeja et al., 2024) . These programs include single or multiple components, such as phonics, fluency, comprehension, and personalized e-books (Kurzeja et al., 2024) . Therefore, the mere presence of a digital interface does not guarantee effectiveness: the content, the instructor, the duration, and the assessment method must be specified.

Technology can structure individual practice without isolating the student from shared instruction. The teacher can introduce the task, observe errors, alternate between screen and printed text, and connect the digital response to a discussion about meaning. This combination prevents practice from being reduced to simply selecting correct options without explaining the underlying understanding. Acceptability also matters: teachers, students, and other stakeholders described the programs as enjoyable and easy to use, but their assessments do not replace measures of learning (Kurzeja et al., 2024) .

Technological interventions and personalization of pace, response, and feedback

A meta-analysis of technology-based reading interventions examined 13 single-case studies that met the methodological criteria of the What Works Clearinghouse, with 50 effect sizes and 33 participants; the overall effect size was Tau-U = 0.89, with a 95% confidence interval between 0.83 and 0.96 (Kim et al., 2024) . Time delay moderated the results, indicating that the timing of support delivery can modify learning (Kim et al., 2024) . This evidence suggests that interfaces allow for graduated waiting, support, and response opportunities. However, it does not allow us to conclude that a specific application works for all students or that the effect persists after the device is removed.

Personalization should be based on functional data: accuracy, error type, response time, need for assistance, and transferability to non-digital materials. Reviews of artificial intelligence describe its potential to support autistic learning, but also point to shortcomings in long-term effectiveness and the standardization of methods (Koss et al., 2025) . An adaptive system is only pedagogically defensible if its decisions are understandable to teachers and families, and if the student can refuse stimuli or request a pause. Pacing should increase engagement, not displace professional judgment.

Virtual accessibility and augmentative communication for students with minimal speech or no speech.

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) expands the ways to demonstrate comprehension through selection, writing, pointing, symbols, or devices. A review of minimally speaking or non-speaking autistic children found only six studies focused on comprehension beyond decoding isolated words, with considerable variation in profiles, objectives, and methodological rigor (Clark et al., 2025) . The scarcity of evidence should not be interpreted as a lack of reading ability. One perspective on literacy argues that excluding non-speaking students based on their communicative needs reflects institutional barriers and a limited understanding of teaching (Kimhi, 2025) .

The experiences of non-speaking students who wrote, deleted, or highlighted text showed that inclusive virtual learning requires connecting competence, communication, and context, as well as reducing structures that privilege speech (Woodfield et al., 2025) . In reading, this implies accepting non-oral responses, allowing sufficient time, and differentiating between comprehension and verbal production. Technology can facilitate this access, but assessment must continue to ask what the student understands and how they can express it. These conditions lead to examining who is represented in the evidence and what institutional decisions support autonomy.

Debates on evidence, inclusion, and application conditions

Promising effects, small sample sizes, and limitations of single-case designs

The literature presents promising effects, but an experimental base dominated by small samples and single-case designs. The meta-analysis of visual representations synthesized five studies, and the one on technology analyzed 33 participants from 13 studies (Kim et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2025) . These designs allow for the observation of individualized changes and replication among participants, although they offer less information on population variation, long-term maintenance, and comparisons between classrooms. The review of computer-assisted instruction found positive results in most of the included studies, but frequently rated the quality as low and the description of procedures as limited (Kurzeja et al., 2024) .

Evidence must be interpreted in light of the measured outcome. Improving correct words per minute does not equate to understanding inferences, and learning CVC words does not demonstrate comprehension of complex texts. School reviews highlight the breadth of areas studied, but they do not eliminate the need for designs that link decoding, language, comprehension, and generalization (McClain et al., 2025) . Future research requires larger samples, mainstream teaching groups, and common measures without sacrificing individual sensitivity.

Differences between reading profiles, ages, languages and support needs

Students with autism do not constitute a single reader profile. The Visualizing and Verbalizing intervention targeted children with comprehension difficulties, while other studies address CVC words, vocabulary, fluency, or students who use AAC (Beckerson et al., 2024; Clark et al., 2025; Frates et al., 2024) . Age also modifies the relevance of materials and goals: the needs of an emerging reader do not coincide with those of an adolescent who must interpret academic texts. Reviews of secondary education highlight explicit instruction, visual support, vocabulary teaching, gradual transfer of responsibility, and teacher collaboration (Bengtsson & Janna, 2025) .

The language of instruction adds another source of variation. Native language support can be integrated with shared reading and systematic instruction, but interlanguage transfer requires direct assessment (Frates et al., 2024) . In minimally speaking or non-speaking students, measures based on oral responses may underestimate comprehension (Clark et al., 2025) . Intervention should begin with an assessment of the reading, communicative, sensory, and linguistic profile, not with a predetermined technology or format.

The right to read: student participation, individualized education plans, and co-teaching

The right to read requires providing meaningful instruction to students with any mode of communication. The exclusion of non-speaking students is related to insufficient teacher preparation, erroneous assumptions about linguistic prerequisites, and a lack of specific research (Kimhi, 2025) . Individualized education plans should formulate observable and reviewable goals for reading, communication, independence, and participation. In a study co-produced with 109 autistic participants and educators, social inclusion, independence, and communication were shared priorities for these plans (Gormley et al., 2024) .

Co-teaching allows classroom teachers and specialists to coordinate materials, support, assessment, and the withdrawal of support. Qualitative research on teachers indicates that a lack of time and resources hinders systematic adaptation (Flykt & Gustafsson, 2025) . Professional learning communities and a whole-school approach can enhance teachers’ capacity to improve reading comprehension for autistic students (Khalid et al., 2024) . Individualization, therefore, depends on both instructional decisions and organizational conditions.

Implications for truly individualized easy reading

Design principles: linguistic clarity, visual load, and student control.

Individualized easy-to-read materials should reduce ambiguity without impoverishing the content. It is advisable to use sentences with explicit relationships, previously taught vocabulary, informative titles, and questions that separate retrieval, explanation, and inference. Visual load should be regulated, because adding backgrounds or details did not uniformly improve learning in autistic children (Lian et al., 2026) . Images, charts, and timetables should have a concrete relationship to the text and be able to be gradually removed.

The student needs to control the pace, repeat a section, ask for clarification, and choose a response mode. Technology can adjust time delays and feedback, but its effects depend on how the intervention is designed (Kim et al., 2024) . Clarity, therefore, includes understandable instructions, pauses, and communicative options, not just lexical simplification.

Selection of support based on assessment and communication preferences

The selection should be based on an assessment that distinguishes between decoding, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, verbal memory, attention, and communication. Verbal memory predicted comprehension in autistic children with specific learning difficulties, suggesting that a single visual aid will not meet all needs (Beckerson et al., 2024) . For students who use AAC, the assessment should accept writing, pointing, and other responses, because the absence of speech alone does not provide information about comprehension (Clark et al., 2025) . The student’s preferences should be incorporated through observation, choice among formats, and joint review of goals.

Research gaps on easy reading, deep comprehension, and long-term outcomes.

There are persistent gaps in research on how easy-to-read adaptations affect inference, integration between paragraphs, critical thinking, and transfer to new texts. Research on AAC is limited and includes heterogeneous profiles, while technology reviews point to a lack of long-term follow-up and standardized methods (Clark et al., 2025; Kots et al., 2025) . Direct comparisons between print and digital versions, and between standalone visual supports and instructional packages, are also lacking. Future studies should include measures of engagement, autonomy, and communicative preference alongside academic outcomes.

Conclusion: combine visual aids, systematic teaching and reading autonomy

Learning at one’s own pace does not mean learning without structure or academic expectations. Visual representations can support meaning and organization, but they require individual selection and specific instruction (Lee et al., 2025) . Shared reading, task analysis, graded support, repeated practice, and feedback offer procedures for developing differentiated skills (Al Naji et al., 2024; Frates et al., 2024) . Technologies allow for adjusting timing and responses, although the evidence remains limited by small samples, heterogeneous designs, and insufficient follow-up (Kim et al., 2024; Kurzeja et al., 2024) . Accessible literacy is achieved when each student can understand, respond to, and participate in texts through the communication channel and at the pace that best suits their learning style.

References

• Al Naji, A., Green, BM, Mathieu-Sher, R., & McCallum, E. (2024). Repeated reading with performance feedback to improve oral reading fluency in Saudi students with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of International Special Needs Education , 28 (1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.9782/jisne-d-24-00002
• Beckerson, ME, Paisley, CA, Murdaugh, DL, Holm, H., Lemelman, AR, Spencer, A., O’Kelley, SE, & Kana, RK (2024). Improving reading comprehension in autism. Frontiers in Psychiatry , 15 , 129. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1292018
• Bengtsson, A., & Janna, J.B. (2025). Methods and strategies to improve reading comprehension in secondary and high school students with autism: A systematic literature review. KTH DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) Publications Database . https://mau.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1937666/FULLTEXT02
• Clark, GT, Skibicki, M., & Pesantes, G. (2025). A systematic review of reading comprehension assessment and intervention in autistic children with minimal or no language [Preprint]. In Research Square . https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7196396/v1
• Flykt, SE, & Gustafsson, M. (2025). Reading comprehension in students with autism: Teachers’ strategies and experiences in teaching reading comprehension. Diva Portal (Dalarna University Library) . https://hb.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:2044268/FULLTEXT01
• Frates, A., Spooner, F., Collins, BC, & Peterson, PJ (2024). The effects of a teaching package on the reading skills of multilingual students with extensive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities , 49 (3), 190–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969241247815
• Gormley, L., Ramey, D., Grennan, C., & Koka, N. (2024). Individualized education plan priorities: Perspectives from the autistic community and educators who support autistic students. European Journal of Education , 59 (4). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12800
• Khalid, PZM, Kussin, HJ, & Zulkepli, N. (2024). Challenges and facilitators in teaching reading comprehension in English as a second language to autistic students. Arab World English Journal , 15 (3), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol15no3.2
• Kim, S.-Y., Mason, RA, Rispoli, MJ, Davis, JL, Lory, C., Gregori, EV, Roberts, CA, Whitford, DK, & Wang, D. (2024). A meta-analysis of single-case studies on technology-assisted reading interventions for students with autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities , 40 (1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576241267963
• Kimhi, Y. (2025). Rethinking literacy instruction for nonverbal autistic students: A perspective on evidence, exclusion, and the right to read. Frontiers in Education , 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1722796
• Kurzeja, O., Flynn, S., Grindle, C.F., Sutherland, D., & Hastings, R.P. (2024). Teaching reading skills to individuals with autism and/or intellectual disability using computer-assisted instruction: A systematic review. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 13 (3), 772–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-024-00465-y
• Lee, S., Quinn, S., & Jiang, Y. (2025). The use of pictorial or graphic representations in reading comprehension interventions for students with autism spectrum disorders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-025-07014-4
• Lian, X., Li, XL, & Guo, HY (2026). Use of picture books to support autistic children: a preliminary study. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2025.2611263
• Liang, Z. (2024). CHECK visual schedules to support individuals with autism spectrum disorder. School and clinic intervention , 60 (4), 228–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512241300157
• McClain, SS, Dahl-Leonard, K., Cook, BG, Goncalvez, B., Tatel, S., Kennedy, M., & Therrien, W. (2025). Reading interventions with school-aged students with autism: A systematic literature review and quality assessment [Preprint]. Center for Open Science. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/7p3wa_v2
• Thuy, TTH, Linh, TTT, Lộc, PT, & Ngoc, NTB (2024). Use of visual aids to improve vocabulary retention in primary school children with autism. International Journal of Education Humanities and Social Science , 07 (03), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.54922/ijehss.2024.0699
• Wang, X. (2025). Emergent literacy instruction for autistic children: A preliminary study of teacher knowledge. Early Childhood Education Journal , 53 (8), 3039–3052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-025-01875-1
• Woodfield, C., McIlvaine, JA, & Quinn, LM (2025). “The playing field has finally been leveled”: Nonverbal autistic students’ perspectives on the fundamental elements of inclusive virtual learning. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2025.2581756
• Kotsyn, S., Chandrinou, S., Iatraki, G., & Soulis, S. (2025). A review of artificial intelligence interventions for students with autism spectrum disorder. Disabilities , 5 (1), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5010007