©2016 Allie Gallinger (MSc Candidate) & Lisa Archibald, PhD; contact: [email protected]
Benefits of SLP-Educator Collaboration in Classrooms QUESTION: Do students benefit from SLP-Educator collaboration in the classroom?
√ Yes, speech language pathologists (SLP) working hand-in-hand with educators in classrooms can lead to language & communication gains
• Collaboration is more effective than: pullout delivery or SLP-educator working independently in the classroom for gains in curricular vocabulary1
• Collaboration leads to better basic concept knowledge2,3,4 and more generalization4 than regular education programs
• Collaboration has positive benefits for targeted grammatical forms5, story telling skills6,7, and formulating complete utterances8
√ Yes, SLP-educator classroom collaboration or co-teaching results in enriched academic outcomes
• Collaboration leads to improved phonological awareness9,10, print knowledge10,11, and writing skills3 in early elementary grades
• Partnerships to facilitate the use of modified instructional language in the classroom for adolescents with language impairment results in better listening skills, and written expression12
• Collaboration promotes exchange of ideas between SLP and educator, carryover by teachers, teacher input about curriculum-relevant communication goals, and SLP input about communication strategies and needs1,2
√ Yes, educational SLPs collaborating with educators can assist with the delivery of differentiated instruction through a tiered service delivery model
• Collaboration increases effectiveness of Tier 1 intervention3
• Collaboration facilitates smoother transition for children who move between Tiers4
• Collaboration provides more opportunities for differentiated instruction4,11
1 Throneberg, R.N., Calvert, L.K., Sturm, J.J., Paramboukas, A.A., & Paul, P.J. (2000). A Comparison of Service Delivery Models Effects on Curricular Vocabulary Skills in the School Setting. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology & Audiology (AJSLPA), 9, 10-20. 2Farber, J.G., & Klein, E.R. (1999). Classroom-based assessment of a collaborative intervention program with kindergarten and first grade students. Language, Speech & Hearing in Schools (LSHSS), 30, 83-91. 3 Ellis, L., Schlaudecker, C., & Regimbal, C. (1995). Effectiveness of a collaborative consultation approach to basic concept instruction with kindergarten Children, LSHSS, 26, 69-74. 4Wilcox, M.J., Kouri, T.A., & Caswell, S.B. (1991). Early language intervention: A comparison of classroom and individual treatment. AJSLPA, 1, 49-60. 5Smith-Lock, K.M., Leitao, S., Lambert, L., & Nickels, L. (2013). Effective intervention for expressive grammar in children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language & Comunication Disorders, 48, 265-282. 6Gillam, S.L., Olszewski, A., Fargo, J., & Gillam, R.B. (2014). Classroom-based narrative & vocabulary instruction: Results of an early-stagge, nonrandomized comparison study. AJSLPA, 45, 204-219. 7Spencer, T.D., Peterson, D.B., Slocum, T.A., & Allen, M.M. (2015). Large group narrative intervention in Head Start preschools: Implications for response to intervention. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 13, 196-217. 8Bland, L.E., & Prelock, P.A. (1996). Effects of collaboration on language performance. Journal of Children’s Communication Development, 17, 31-37. 9Hadley, P.A., Simmerman, A., Long, M., & Luna, M. (2000). Facilitating language development for inner-city children: Experimental evaluation of a collaborative, classroom-based intervention. LSHSS, 31, 280-295. 10Justice, L.M., McGinty, A.S., Cabell, S.Q., Kilday, C.R., Knighton, K., & Huffman, G. (2010). Language & literacy curriculum supplement for preschoolers who are academically at risk: A feasibility study. LSHSS, 41, 161-178. 11Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., & Greenberg, J. (2012). Facilitating emergent literacy: Efficacy of a model that partners speech-language pathologists & educators. AJSLPA, 21, 47-63. 12Starling, J., Munro, N., Togher, L., & Arciuli, J. (2012). Training secondary school teachers in instructional language modification techniques to support adolescents with language impairment: A randomized controlled trial. LSHSS, 43, 474-495.
Service Delivery
Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology | Vol. 37, N0. 4, Winter 2014300
of professional overlap and professionals sharing roles and responsibilities (Hall & Weaver, 2001). A transdisciplinary approach requires extensive communication as professionals are expected to assume the roles of professionals belonging to other disciplines (Hall & Weaver, 2001; Hartas, 2004). Transdisciplinary approaches include parallel, team or co-teaching (Flynn, 2010).
Figure 1 summarizes this synthesis of theoretical models of service delivery and applications or specific configurations in and out of the classroom. The isolated units of information presented in Figure 1 are not novel and are found in previously published literature (Flynn, 2010; Hall &Weaver, 2001; Hartas, 2004). However, this synthesis of information about service delivery and collaboration is novel. This unique synthesis of service delivery models for school-based S-LPs and teachers was achieved by combining information about service delivery location (i.e., in the classroom/outside of the classroom) and specific classroom configurations with general models of collaboration (i.e., the parallel or co-teaching configuration as an example of the transdisciplinary model).
Collaboration: More Than “Working Together”
Figure 1. Synthesis of Theoretical Models of Service Delivery and Applications in Schools
Knowing different models and configurations of service delivery is valuable in planning and implementing services for children. It is important that professionals use the models of service delivery strategically in order to address the needs of students throughout the intervention period. Each model of service delivery has strengths and weaknesses and therefore it is the responsibility of professionals to determine when to use each model. For example, a child who only had an articulation delay might initially benefit the most from a multidisciplinary approach to intervention where the S-LP works with the child in pull-out sessions to elicit the correct articulation of a sound. Once the child is able to produce the sound consistently, perhaps an interdisciplinary approach to service delivery would be appropriate where the S-LP would be drifting throughout the classroom while the children are engaged in a partner work, occasionally assisting the child with the articulation delay to correctly produce the target sound. In this manifestation of the interdisciplinary model, the teacher would be responsible for designing the classroom activity and for the education of all the students in the classroom and the S-LP would be responsible for
From Suleman et al. (2014). CJSLPA, 37, 298-304.
SAC Webinar January 2019
1
Classroom-based language intervention: Review of current evidence
Lisa Archibald, PhDWestern University
SAC Webinar January 30, 2019
Overview1. Service delivery models2. Classroom-based interventions – what does the
evidence say?• Vocabulary & concept knowledge• Oral language • Curriculum-based goals• Phonological awareness & literacy• Writing• Speech
3. Establishing effective partnerships
Why Classroom-based Services?
• Impact / efficiency of S&L services• It is nothing short of foolhardy to make enormous
investments in remedial instruction and then return children to classroom instruction that will not serve to maintain the gains they made in the remedial program (Snow et al., 1998, p. 258, National Research Council)
Why Classroom-based Services?
• Inclusion– Just putting a child in a group does not necessarily
mean that child will become part of the group– Ability to cooperate in a group affected by:• language / communication skills• social competence
– Challenge for children with communicationdisorders
Brinton et al. (2000)
Why Classroom-based Services?
• Curriculum access – All students should have equal access to
educational opportunities (Education Act)– Academic Curriculum• Rigorous content• Requires deep understanding, reasoning, problem
solving
ØFocus on classroom instruction
Why Classroom-based Services
• Undifferentiated instruction – not adequate for students with disabilities such as
developmental language disorder (DLD)• Educational activities themselves pose a barrier to
access (e.g., reading or language level is too challenging)
• Differentiated instruction– Tailoring instruction to meet individual needs in
the classroom
SAC Webinar January 2019
2
Silliman et al. (2000)
• Scaffolding– Temporary support to assist learners in
completing a task they might not otherwise complete
– Dynamic: finely tuned to the learner�s ongoing progress
Silliman et al. (2000)
Directive scaffolding• Knowledge transmission• Student is empty container
– Lacks content– So, lacks competence
• Teacher-directed learning– IRE sequences
• Initiation by adult• Response by student• Evaluation by adult
Supportive scaffolding• Instructional conversation• Student needs to learn how
to learn• Assisted problem solving
1.Explicit modeling (think-aloud)2.Direct explanations3.Invitations to participate
4.Feedback / clarifications
Silliman et al. (2000)
Directive scaffolding• Knowledge transmission• Student is empty container
– Lacks content
– So, lacks competence
• Teacher-directed learning– IRE sequences
• Initiation by adult• Response by student• Evaluation by adult
Supportive scaffolding• Instructional conversation• Student needs to learn how
to learn• Assisted problem solving
1.Explicit modeling (think-aloud)
2.Direct explanations
3.Invitations to participate
4.Feedback / clarifications
Is there evidence that we need both?
Lovett et al. (1994) – Effective reading instruction requires•Explicit instruction in phonemic segmentation, blending, phoneme-grapheme segmentation •→ Directive scaffolding•Explicit scaffolding focusing on problem-solving strategies for analyzing phoneme-grapheme relationships → Supportive scaffolding
(Both strategies are used in EMPOWER™ Reading)
Silliman et al. (2000)• Followed 2 students with learning disability
(LD; 8-9 yrs), and 2 typically developing peers (TD; 6 yrs)
• �Inclusion classroom� – educational team including SLP
• Emergent reading (small) groups by– Classroom teacher– Special education teacher
• Videotaped 13 sessions; coded for scaffolding type
Scaffolding Types
Directive scaffolding• Direct teaching of concept
or skill• Prompting to elicit content
(presumed known)• Accuracy-based feedback
Subjective scaffolding• Demonstration of thinking
process • Expands or draws
connections to understanding of concept
• Elicit expansions or reasons• Responsive feedback or
requests for clarification
Silliman et al. (2000)
• Results– >99% of all sequences were directive– No differentiation based on participant learning
status• So, these highly skilled teachers immersed in a
critical thinking framework for teaching were unable to provide meaningful differentiated instruction in small groups
SAC Webinar January 2019
3
Other Negative Evidence
• From preschool populations– Low exposure to high-quality language (Turnbull
et al., 2009)– Low use of language strategies such as modeling,
expansion (Bickford-Smith et al., 2005)– High use of directive (Girolametto et al., 2003) & �here-and-now� language (Dickinson & Tabors, 1991)
–Models are insufficient to promote language growth (Turnbull et al., 2009)
We need more evidence regarding differentiated instruction in the school age classroom!
Why Classroom-based Services?
• Providing differentiated instruction in a large
class is difficult (Myhill & Warren, 2005)
• Difficulties children with DLD experience may
be missed by the classroom teacher (Palincsar
et al., 2000)
Why Classroom-based Services?
• The presence of a specialist in the classroom with expert understanding of DLD may permit more effective implementation of a differentiated instruction framework
• No one person/profession has sufficient expertise to execute all of the functions associated with providing educational services to all children in the classroom (Hadley et al., 2000)
Why Classroom-based ServicesPotential benefits• Increase SLP knowledge of
curriculum• Increase teacher’s strategies
with children with communication disorders• Improve generalization• Serve larger population (‘at-
risk’)• Children don’t miss
instructional time
Barriers•Must maintain role
differentiation (‘added value’ NOT teacher’s aide)•Must maintain therapeutic
focus & well-articulated goals– ‘going with the flow’
problematic
• Time, scheduling, planning challenges• Lack of understanding of each
other’s expertise
Throneburg et al., 2000; Wilcox et al., 1991; Ehren, 2000
Vocabulary – Throneburg et al., 2000
Pull out• 50 min / wk• Target vocab &
other appropriate goals
Classroom-based services• SLP taught same
vocab but teacher not involved, not present
Collaborative Co-teaching• SLP & teacher met
weekly (40 min ea.); identified vocab & plan • Team taught in class, 5
targets/wk (40 min, 1/wk; 12wks)
• 1 class ea. K, gr. 1, 2, 3 (n=43, 9 S&L)• Randomly assigned
from 2nd school
• 1 class ea, K, gr. 1, 2, 3 (n=60; 11 S&L)• Randomly assigned
from 2nd school
• 1 class ea. K, gr. 1, 2, 3 (n=74; 12 S&L)• Target school
Vocabulary – Throneburg et al., 2000
• Outcome measure– Total target word corpus per grade = 60– 20 randomly chosen for pre vs. post test– Tasks:• Define word verbally• Use word in a sentence• Recognize the word�s meaning from choice of 2
– Scoring:• 4 points (precise, vague, incorrect, no response)
SAC Webinar January 2019
4
Vocabulary – Throneburg et al., 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
S&Lneeds All
Vocabularyte
stsc
oregain
Pullout
Classroom-based
Collaborativeco-teaching
*
*
Created based on reported data
Vocabulary – Throneburg et al., 2000
• Compelling evidence – Advantage for classroom-based team-teaching
models over pullout intervention for targeted vocabulary
• Lots of planning time!
Classroom-based Services
• SLP collaborative consultation benefits• Vocabulary
üTargeted – compelling evidenceüGeneralization – suggestive evidence
Classroom-based servicesBusiness-as-usual comparison• Student SLP assisted
classroom teacher on same schedule as expt�l class
• Narrative language instruction by SLP in classroom– Story grammar elements– Elaboration: Story sparkle– Independent storytelling
• Embedded vocabulary• 30 min, 3x/wk for 6 wks
Narrative Language – Gillam et al., 2014
• Gr. 1 class; low risk (n=10), high risk (n=11) • Risk: TONL cut point of 90 std
score
• Gr. 1 class; low risk (n=7); high risk (n=12)• Risk: TONL cut point of 90 std
score
Narrative Language – Gillam et al., 2014• Outcome measure– Narrative probe (child tells story from a single picture)
• Rubrics for scoring:– Macrostructure – character, setting, initiating event, internal
response, plan, attempt, consequence– Microstructure – coordinated & subordinated conjunctions,
adverbs, metacognitive verbs, elaborated noun phrases– Vocabulary probe (criterion-referenced)
• Story grammar, literacy knowledge, feelings, verbs, adjectives; �Tell me what the X means�
• Rubric for scoring: incorrect/no response, some related description, accurate information resembling a definition
– Pre & post testing
Narrative Language – Gillam et al., 2014
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
High-risk Low-risk High-risk Low-risk
NarrativeIntervention Comparison
Narrativeprobescore(/36)
PrePost
High-risk group made clinically significant change in narrative language after receiving intervention in the classroom
Created based on reported data
SAC Webinar January 2019
5
05
101520253035404550
High-risk Low-risk High-risk Low-risk
Narra5veInterven5on Comparison
Vocabu
laryscore(/80)
Pre
Post
Narrative Language – Gillam et al., 2014
All children in experimental classroom made gains on vocabulary with greatest gains observed for the low-risk group
Lowest kids showed the least benefit
Created based on reported data
• Highly suggestive evidence
– Classroom-based narrative language with
embedded vocabulary instruction can lead to clinically significant change in
• Narrative language
• Vocabulary (but perhaps not sufficient for kids with lowest skills)
• SKILL
– Supporting Knowledge in Language & Literacy– https://usuworks.usu.edu/Details.cfm?ProdID=32&category=2
Narrative Language – Gillam et al., 2014
Classroom-based Services
• SLP collaborative consultation benefits• Vocabulary
üTargeted – compelling evidenceüGeneralization – suggestive evidence
• Oral languageüNarrative – highly suggestiveüTargeted expressive grammar – suggestive
o Improvements, not mastery?
Literacy-related
• Phonological awareness– Rhyme; phoneme awareness
• (Emergent literacy)– Print concepts
• Curriculum-based language• Writing
Phonological Aw. – Hadley et al., 2000CollaborativeClassroom-based servicesBusiness-as-usual comparison
• Paraprofessional assisted classroom teacher on same schedule as expt�l class
• Collaborative program1. Professional exchange2. Joint planning – wkly mtgs @ 1
hr; identify target vocab, 2 letter-sound assoc./wk
3. In the classroom (SLP – 2.5 days/wk)• Language facilitation • Ph. aw. – included SLP-led ph.
aw. small-group centre 25 min/wk
• Inner-City school (at-risk)• 2 K-gr. 1 classes (n=46)
• Same school• 2 K-gr. 1 classes (n=40)
• Outcome measures (pre/Sept – post/April)– Phonological Awareness & Literacy Screening
(PALS; Swank et al., 1997) grade-level subtests• Rhyme awareness • Initial sound awareness• Syllable deletion• Phoneme deletion
– Vocabulary • PPVT-III; EVT
Phonological Aw. – Hadley et al., 2000
Trained
Untrained
SAC Webinar January 2019
6
Phonological Aw. – Hadley et al., 2000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Rhyme Initialsound Letter-sound Syllabledeletion
Phonemedeletion
PALSra
wsc
oregain
Expt'lControl
* * *
*Untrained
Expt�l advantages for receptive & expressive vocabulary also (see vocabulary section)
Created based on reported data
• Collaborative classroom model with at-risk K/gr.1– Improved phonological awareness– Improved generalized vocabulary
• Highly suggestive of added value
Phonological Aw. – Hadley et al., 2000
Classroom-based Services
• SLP collaborative consultation benefits• Vocabulary
üTargeted – compelling evidenceüGeneralization – suggestive evidence
• Oral languageüNarrative – highly suggestiveüTargeted expressive grammar – suggestive
o Improvements, not mastery?
• Literacy-relatedüPhonological awareness – compelling evidence
CBL – Bland & Prelock, 1996
Pull out• 1-2x/wk, 30-45 min• Pull-out sessions
incorporating academic curriculum
Collaborative Co-teaching• Language-in-Classroom:
1.Transdisciplinary training (7@2hrs) 2.Wkly planning (30-45 min) –
establish common goals, activities3.In class, wkly, 30-45 min, team
taught by SLP, teacher & assistant
• 7 DLD, grades 1-4•Matched to expt’l group
• 7 DLD, grades 1-4
CBL – Bland & Prelock, 1996
• Outcome measure– Fall & Spring for 3 years!– Language samples• 100-200 utterances on conversational topics• Coded for
– Number of different words– Mean length of utterance (morphemes)– Utterance completeness– Utterance intelligibility
CBL – Bland & Prelock, 1996• Results:– No group differences on
• Number of different words • Mean length of utterances
– Expt�l group > Control group• Number of intelligible utterances• Number of complete utterances
SAC Webinar January 2019
7
CBL – Bland & Prelock, 1996• Suggestive evidence
⎼ No difference in pull-out vs classroom-based services for expressive form
⎼ Connected discourse advantage for classroom-based services
⎼ Consistent with focus of the Language-In-Classroom (LIC) program on communication effectiveness
⎼ Presence of SLP/collaborative framework may be necessary to achieve high quality language & literacy instruction (Justice et al., 2009)
CBL/Instructional Language –Starling et al. 2012
Collaborative trainingWait condition (control)• Delayed start after 1 school term
without training
• Schools were randomly chosen
• Training during a school term• Wkly mtg, 50 min. x 10 by SLP
• Targeted modifications:• Written & oral language,
information processing, vocab. instruction
• 7 Secondary school teachers with at least 1 DLD student in class in 1 school
• 21 students with DLD (12-14 y.o.)
• 6 Secondary school teachers with at least 1 DLD student in class in another school
• 22 students with DLD
CBL/Instructional Language –Starling et al. 2012
• Examples of modifications:– Modifying worksheets to present smaller, visually
distinct written sections– Adding graphics & icons– Explicit rather than inferred instructions– Allowing time for processing & responding– Whole class deconstruction of complex texts– Providing an outline of lesson– Identifying specialized vocabulary– Whole class morphemic analysis of words
CBL/Instructional Language –Starling et al. 2012
• Outcome measures– Pre/post testing– Teacher modification use• Levels of Use interview
– Coded modification use on 8 level continuum
– Student outcomes• Reading comprehension; written expression; listening
comprehension; oral expression (WIAT-III)
CBL/Instructional Language –Starling et al. 2012
Pre- Use rating Post-Use rating
Trained teachers Nonuse (0) Mechanical use (3)Routine, refined, or integrated use (4-6)
Untrained teachers
Nonuse (0) Nonuse; orientation (0-1)
• Results: Teacher ratings of use
CBL/Instructional Language –Starling et al. 2012
• Results: Student outcomes
Post training to follow-up. Paired t tests (post to follow-up)were conducted on each of the four WIAT–II subtests thatwere administered to the students in the trained group. Aver-age standard scores remained stable over the 12-week periodbetween the tests. There was no significant difference inperformance between post to follow-up tests on Reading Com-prehension, postintervention mean = 80.62, SD = 5.5, follow-upmean = 80.1, SD = 6.2, t(19) = .447, p = .660; ListeningComprehension, postintervention mean = 82.4, SD = 14.5,follow-up mean = 82.4, SD = 12.8, t(19) = .0001, p = 1.00;Oral Expression, postintervention mean = 87.48, SD = 10.0,follow-up mean = 87.8, SD = 8.6, t(19) = .214, p = .833; orWritten Expression, postintervention mean = 92.2, SD = 12.9,follow-up mean = 92.5, SD = 13.0, t(19) = .117, p = .908.
DISCUSSION
This study evaluated the efficacy of a training-basedcollaboration between an SLP and a group of mainstream
secondary school teachers. The purpose of the training wasto facilitate changes to teachers’ oral and written instruc-tional language and to observe the impact this had on thelanguage abilities of students with LI in their classes. Ourfirst hypothesis was that the teachers who were trained over aperiod of time by the SLP in the use of a set of instruc-tional language modification techniques would adopt thesetechniques and apply them to their regular whole-classteaching practices. An additional hypothesis was that, as acarryover benefit, the use and application of the tech-niques by the teachers would lead to improvements inthe language abilities of the students with LI in theirclasses.
The findings of the present study support these hypoth-eses. Results indicated that the trained teachers significantlymoved along a continuum of change in their levels of use ofthe techniques, to at least a self-focused level and, in somecases, to an impact-focused level of use. In contrast, nochange was seen in the levels of use of the intervention bythe control group who had not yet received the training.Similarly, positive outcomes were observed in the group of
Figure 1. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Second Edition, Australian Standardised Edition (Wechsler, 2007) subtest results atpre and post training for Year 8 students with language impairment in the trained school versus the control school.
486 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 474–495 • October 2012
Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by University of Western Ontario, Lisa Archibald on 03/02/2016Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
Starling et al., 2012, LSHSS, 43, p. 486, Fig. 1
* *
SAC Webinar January 2019
8
CBL/Instructional Language –Starling et al. 2012
• Collaborative training⎼ Increased mainstream secondary teachers’
instructional language practices⎼ Improvements in language abilities of adolescents
with DLD⎼ Presence of SLP/collaborative framework
facilitated implementation of differentiated instruction
Classroom-based Services• SLP collaborative consultation benefits• Vocabulary
ü Targeted – compelling evidenceüGeneralization – suggestive evidence
• Oral languageüNarrative – highly suggestiveü Targeted expressive grammar – suggestive
o Improvements, not mastery?
• Literacy-relatedüPhonological awareness – compelling evidenceü Emergent literacy – compelling evidenceü School age curriculum-based language – preliminaryü Instructional language use – highly suggestive
Writing – Nelson & Van Meter, 2006
• Writing lab approach– 3x/wk; 45-60 min.; over the school year; gr. 1-5– Teacher & SLP – planning & implementation– Curriculum-based writing• Recursive writing: Planning, organizing, drafting,
revising, editing, publishing, presenting• Authentic projects: author chair, peer conferencing• Language targets: discourse, sentences, words, writing
conventions, spoken communication
Writing – Nelson & Van Meter, 2006
• Results– Case studies & preliminary results document
growth in all language targets for typically developing, DLD, and English learners (Nelson et al., 2004; Nelson & Van Meter, 2006)
– Practice-based evidence
Classroom-based Services• SLP collaborative consultation benefits• Vocabulary
üTargeted – compelling evidenceüGeneralization – suggestive evidence
• Oral languageüNarrative – highly suggestiveüTargeted expressive grammar – suggestive
o Improvements, not mastery? • Literacy-related
üPhonological awareness – compelling evidenceüEmergent literacy – compelling evidenceüSchool age curriculum-based language – preliminaryoWriting – practice-based evidence
What about speech?
• Benfiel, 2000 (Unpublished thesis)– SLP behaviours & child practice– Children with language-only vs. articulation-only
delays– Equal amounts of classroom vs. pull out treatment
SAC Webinar January 2019
9
Speech – Benfiel, 2000
Pull out• 2x/wk; 20-min• Individually or in pairs• Separate room• Curricular narrative materials
used to target child’s goals
Classroom-based Co-teaching• One-teach/one-drift model • 30 min/wk during language arts• Teacher taught curricular lesson; SLP
targeted child’s goals using curricular materials• SLP & teacher met wkly for 30 min.
• 9 gr. 1-2 children in 5 classes– 4 DLD; 5 articulation delay only
• 9 gr. 1-2 children in 5 classes– 4 DLD; 5 articulation delay only
Speech – Benfiel, 2000
• Outcome measures:– 40 min. of treatment observed• 3x in school year: mid-Oct; February; April
– SLP behaviours counted• Models; elicitation/production practice; feedback• Relevant to the child’s goal
– Child productions• An attempt to produce the target behaviour
Speech – Benfiel, 2000• Results: SLP behaviours
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Beginning Middle End Beginning Middle End
Language Speech
No.ofSLPbeh
aviours
CollaboraAon
Pull-out
No context difference for language goals
More speech-related behaviours in pull-out
Speech behaviours decreased over time
Created based on reported data
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Beginning Middle End Beginning Middle End
Language Speech
No.ofchildprodu
c=on
s
Collabora=on
Pull-out
Speech – Benfiel, 2000• Results: Child productions
No context difference for language goals
More speech productions in pull-out
Speech behaviours decreased over time
Created based on reported data
Speech – Benfiel, 2000
• Classroom-based intervention– Language opportunities might be similar to that
provided during pull-out sessions– Not efficient for goals focused on speech
production
Classroom-based Services• SLP collaborative consultation benefits• Vocabulary
üTargeted – compelling evidenceüGeneralization – suggestive evidence
• Oral languageüNarrative – highly suggestiveüTargeted expressive grammar – suggestive
o Improvements, not mastery? • Literacy-related
üPhonological awareness – compelling evidenceüEmergent literacy – compelling evidenceüSchool age curriculum-based language – preliminaryoWriting – practice-based evidence
• Speechüsuggestive negative evidence
SAC Webinar January 2019
10
Classroom-based Services• How to?– begin in a small way– with someone you can
work well with– share expertise
• classroom skills• language &
communication
– targeted skills withevidence• narratives; vocabulary;
literacy-related
– invest in collaboration!
• Remember!– classroom-based
services are not always enough!• specific grammatical
targets• speech targets
– need to keep advocating for Tier 2 & 3 services
Stages of Collaboration• Co-activity – resembles parallel play; separate instructional
activities with little sharing of ideas• Cooperation– jointly establishing general goals (not individual goals)
• Coordination– sharing opinions & instructional strategies related to
specific students; no role release• Collaboration– informal networking & sharing of responsibilities; high
degree of trust & respect
Elksnin & Capilouto, (1994)
Future Research – Let’s do it!• Ideas:–Writing better sentences: Sentence-combining
(Saddler & Asaro-Saddler, 2010)– Drawing pictures during scientific learning
(Schmeck et al., 2014)– Supportive scaffolding in guided inquiry– Oral language participation during problem-based
learning in later grades– Reading motivation
Practice-based Research
• Gathering information from practice, to answer questions arising from practice, in order to inform future practice
– Epstein (2001)
• We’re on it at Western!– so call me!
Thank you!• To contact me…– [email protected]– Lab website
• http://www.uwo.ca/fhs/lwm/– Lab blog
• http://www.canadianslp.blogspot.com/– Twitter
• @larchiba6– Pinterest
• www.pinterest.com/lisaarchibald
Language Goals in the Classroom: Summary of the Evidence
Study Sample Intervention groups Results
Diffe
rent
iatio
n
Silliman et al.,
2000 (St)
2 primary students with
learning disability
2 typical
primary level
Observed in 13 sessions over 8 wks in
emergent reading grp with either general or
special education teacher; scaffolding
categorized as directive or subjective
<1% of all sequences were
supportive; no differentiation
based on learning status
Palincsar et al.,
2000 (St)
Case study of 1 fourth
grade student with LD
Observed during guided inquiry science
lesson in small group work
Child has important contributions
but difficulty gaining group access
without researcher support;
teacher not always able to provide
Voca
bula
ry
Throneburg et
al., 2000 (C)
K-gr. 3, 4 classes ea:
Collab. (n=74;12 S&L)
Classroom (n=60;11 S&L)
Pull out (n=43; 9 S&L)
random assignment for 2
control conditions
Collaboration – joint planning (40min/wk);
team taught 5 targets/wk in 40 min weekly
session for 12 wks
Classroom – SLP taught same vocab on same
schedule but teacher not involved
Pull out – 50min/wk; target vocab & other
goals
Greater gain on targeted vocab.
for collaboration & classroom than
pull out for all kids; greater gain
for S&L kids in collaboration than
either classroom or pullout
Wilcox et al.,
1991 (S+)
Preschool, DLD
10 in classroom
10 individual
Play-based interactive modeling of 10 target
words; team implementation in classroom;
min. 10 models/target for 24 sessions
No diff. on target wrds
Class. > Ind. On generalization
measure
Hadley et al.,
2000 (S+)
K-gr. 1, at-risk
2 collab. classes (n=46)
2 control classes (n=40)
Collaboration – joint planning (1hr/wk); 20
words/concepts ea. wk; SLP 2.5 days/wk
Control – paraprofessional on same schedule
Collab > control
-vocab (PPVT; EVT)
*see also ph. aw. Section
Valdez &
Montgomery,
1997 (S-)
Preschool, DLD
20 in classroom
20 pull-out
90 min @ 1/wk for 6 months
Collab: joint identification of goals, planning,
implementation
Both targeted concept develop.
No. group diff. in gain on CELF
total & exp. language score (pull
out- greater rec. gain)
Ellis et al., 1995
(S)
K, at-risk
1 consult class (n=20)
1 control class (n=20)
Consult – SLP & teachers selected concepts;
SLP provided ideas in weekly meetings;
Control-business as usual
Consult > control for target
concepts; no diff. on untrained
concepts
Narra
tive
Lang
uage
/ Ex
pres
sive
Lang
uage
Gillam et al.,
2014 (S+)
Gr. 1, low & high risk
(LR/HR)
1 Exptl class (n=10/11)
1 Business-as-usual
(n=7/12)
Exptl – SLP provides narrative language instr.
In classroom 30 min, 3x/wk for 6 wks
Business-as-usual – student SLP assisted
teacher on same schedule
Narrative gains in exptl clinically
significant for high risk group
Targeted vocab. gains in exptl with
low risk group showing greatest
gains
Smith-Lock et
al., 2013 (S)
School for DLD, 5 y.o.,
random assigned to:
Expt’l (n=22)
Control (n=18)
Expt’l – 3 expressive goals: SLP in classroom
1/wk for 1 hr, 8 wks; class lesson, then 3
small grps led by teacher, assistant & SLP
Control – business as usual with focus on
comprehension
Expt’l > control on treated but not
untreated grammatical targets
*Need to specific focus on gram.
target
Spencer et al.,
2015 (S+)
Preschool, at-risk
2 Exptl classes (n=36)
2 Business-as-usual
(n=35)
Expt’l – whole class narr. lang. program:
model, gestures, retell
4x/wk for 3 wks, 15-20 min ea.
http://bit.ly/21SiNdE
Expt’l > control story retell &
comp.
No diff. on story production
Motsch et al.,
2008 (S)
Schools for DLD, 8-10 y.o.
(in Germany)
23 Expt’l classes (n=63)
22 Control classes (n=63)
Expt’l - 6-weeks daily incorporation of
training on grammatical targets focusing on
context with well-controlled, known vocab.
Control – itargets incorporated as possible
Expt’l > control on trained targets,
but performance did not reach
mastery
Phon
olog
ical A
w.
Hadley et al.,
2000 (S+)
K-gr. 1, at-risk
2 collab. classes (n=46)
2 control classes (n=40)
*See vocab. section
Collaboration included SLP-led small grp on
ph. aw. (25 min/wk)
Collab > control
-trained & untrained ph. aw. Tasks
(including more challenging tasks)
Koutsoftas et
al., 2009 (S)
Low-Income Preschools
34 low scorers on a ph.
aw. measure in Jan.
Tier 2 – 2x/wk, 6 wks, 20-25 min ea., teacher
or SLP, small grps in classroom; scripted
instruction targeting initial sound awareness
Single subject responses to probe
tasks – 71% with med-large tx
effects
van Kleek et al.,
1998 (S)
School for children with
comm. dis.
2 grps of 8 (3-4; 5-6 y.o.);
Ph. aw. activities 12 wks in ea of 2 terms;
rhyme, then phoneme aw.; centres to which
children rotated (10-15 min)
Expt’l > Control on measures of
rhyme & phonemic aw.
8 historical control data CB
L/Sc
hool
Age
Bland & Prelock, 1996 (S)
Gr.1-4 classrooms Collab. 7 DLD Pull out 7 DLD
Collaboration – interdisciplinary training (7@2hrs), planning (30min/wk) to establish common curric. & comm. goals, team teaching (SLP-educator) 30-45min/wk Pull out – 1-2x/wk, total 30-45min, incorporated academic vocab
Measured Fall/Spring for 3 yrs! No grp diff in # diff words & utterance length Collab > pullout # of inteDLDgible utterances & complete utterances
Starling et al., 2012 (S+)
Sec. school teachers/DLD 7/21 collab. training 6/22 wait condition Schools randomly chosen
Collaboration – 10 wkly 50 min mtgs with SLP targeting modifying language of instruction (oral & written) Wait – did not receive until after study
Trained > untrained teachers use of modifications DLD students of trained > untrained teachers better written exp & listening comp (WIAT-III); no diff on oral exp & reading comp
Kaufman et al., 1994 (S-)
Typical, 3rd grade 1 Expt’l class (n=16) 1 Business-as-usual control (n=16)
Expt’l – LIC program + comm. skills unit by SLP & teacher, 1/wk for 3 wks, 45 min ea.; focused on adequacy of explanations to peers/adults
Expt’l > Control at identifying poorer quality explanations, & provided better justifications
Drew, 1998 (S-) Summer school, 32 poor readers, 6-10 yrs Small groups
‘Everyone Can Read’ designed & implemented by SLP: phonics-based, sight words, repetition, pleasure of reading (11-12 hrs total)
22 improved reading age by > 6 mos; 4 - no benefit; older children benefited more
Farber & Klein, 1999 (S)
6 schools, K & gr. 1 12 Expt’l classes (n=319) 12 Control classes (n=253)
Expt’l – MAGIC; SLP & teacher, 2.25 hrs/wk; wkly 1 hr planning mtgs; goals: improve literacy, incr. oral language, impr. communication
Expt’l > Control on listening comp. & writing; reading approached sig No diff in speaking
CBL &
Emer
gent
Lite
racy
/ Pr
esch
ool
Wilcox et al., 2011 (S+)
S&L needs; 3-5y.o. Random assgn; unbalanced 19 Exptl classes (n=80) 10 Business as usual (n=38)
Expt’l – Teaching Early Literacy & Language; code-focused (ph. aw., alphabet, print concepts, writing) & oral lang (vocab, sent. length & complex.); 12 biwkly themes, all day/yr; training – 22h, 30 min. wkly in-class mentor (SLP) support
Expt’l > Control on vocab., sentence length, ph. aw.; language-rich classrooms No diff. on sentence complexity, print concepts
Justice et al., 2010, 2009 (S+)
3-5 yrs, typical 11 Expt’l classes (n=66) 9 Business-as-usual (n=72)
Expt’l – Read It Again!, 30 wk curriculum, 2x/wk for 20-30 min; 1.5 days training – teachers, SLP, assistants; whole class focus on narrative, vocab, print aw., phon. aw. http://bit.ly/25viutZ Control – 2 prof training days
Expt’l > Control on language (grammar; vocab) & emergent literacy (print & phon. aw) No diff on alphabet (business as usual)
Girolametto et al., 2012 (C)
Random assgn of 20 educators: 10 trained, 10 control; ea. recruit 3-4 kid
Expt’l – Prof. dev: ABC & Beyond Hanen program (4 workshops with SLP; 3 classroom visits; video fdbk)
Trained > untrained in making print references, using, & child using, decontextualized language
Writ
ing Nelson &
Meter, 2006 (St)
Gr. 1-5 Individual cases
3x/wk, 45-60 min, jointly planned & implemented by SLP & educator, target curriculum-based writing
Patient-based evidence documents growth in all targets
Spee
ch
Benfiel, 2000 (Unpublished) (S)
Gr. 1-2 Collab. – 4 DLD, 5 artic. Pull out – 4 DLD, 5 artic.
Collaboration – 1 teach/1 drift; 30 min/wk; SLP targeted comm. goals using curric. taught by teacher; SLP-teacher met wkly Pull out – 2x/wk, 20 min ea.; incorporate curr. materials
Collab = pull out for language-related, but collab < pull out for speech-related SLP behaviours; Collab = pull out for DLD but collab < pull out for artic. kid productions
McLeod et al., (2017)
4-5 yrs, SSD; randomly assigned Expt’l (n=65) or business-as-usual (n=58)
Computer-assisted intervention using preset teacher controls for individualized targets; SLP did 1st session then monitored; educator did other sessions; 1-2x/wk for 9 wks
No group differences
Ratings: (C) – compelling; (S+) – highly suggestive; (S) – suggestive; (S-) – somewhat suggestive; (St) – sufficient to stimulate further research; CBL – Curriculum-Based Language; MAGIC – Maximizing Academic Growth by Improving Communication; SSD – speech sound disorder
Classroom-based Language Intervention: Review of Current Evidence Reference List
Archibald, L.M.D. (2017). SLP-educator classroom collaboration: A review to inform reason-based practice. Autism &
Developmental Language Impairments, 2, 1-17. Benefiel, Cl.L. (2001). A longitudinal descriptive study of service delivery employing collaborative classroom-based or
pull-out service delivery. Masters Theses. Paper 1537. http://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/1537 Bickford-Smith, A., Wijjayatilake, L., & Woods, G. (2005). Evaluating the effectiveness of an early years language
intervention. Educational Psychology in Practice, 21, 161-173. Bland, L.E., & Prelock, P.A. (1996). Effects of collaboration on language performance. Journal of Children’s
Communication Development, 17, 31-37. Brinton, B., Fujiki, M., Montague, E.C., & Hanton, J.L. (2000). Children with language impairment in cooperative work
groups: A pilot study. LSHSS, 31, 252-264. Dickinson, D., & Tabors, P. (2001). Beginning literacy with language. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Drew, M.F. (1998). Speech and language therapist-teacher collaboration in a literacy summer school. IJLCD, 33, supp.,
581-586. Ehren, B.J. (2000). Maintaining a therapeutic focus and sharing responsibility for student success; Keys to in-classroom
speech-language services. LSHSS, 31, 219-229. Elksnin, L.K., & Capilouto, G.J. (1994). Speech-language pathologists’ perceptions of integrated service delivery in school
settings. LSHSS, 25, 258-267. Ellis, L., Schlaudecker, C., & Regimbal, C. (1995). Effectiveness of a collaborative consultation approach to basic concept
instruction with kindergarten Children, LSHSS, 26, 69-74. Epstein, I. (2001). Using available clinical information in practice-based research: Mining for silver while dreaming of
gold. In I. Epstein & S. Blumenfield, eds. Clinical data-mining in practice-based research: Social work in hospital settings. The Haworth Social Work Practice Press: Binghamton, NY.
Farber, J.G., & Klein, E.R. (1999). Classroom-based assessment of a collaborative intervention program with kindergarten and first grade students. LSHSS, 30, 83-91.
Gillam, S.L., Olszewski, A., Fargo, J., & Gillam, R.B. (2014). Classroom-based narrative & vocabulary instruction: Results of an early-stagge, nonrandomized comparison study. AJSLPA, 45, 204-219.
Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., & Greenberg, J. (2012). Facilitating emergent literacy: Efficacy of a model that partners speech-language pathologists & educators. AJSLPA, 21, 47-63.
Hadley, P.A., Simmerman, A., Long, M., & Luna, M. (2000). Facilitating language development for inner-city children: Experimental evaluation of a collaborative, classroom-based intervention. LSHSS, 31, 280-295.
Justice, L.M., McGinty, A., Guo, Y., & Moore, D. (2009). Implementation of responsiveness to intervention in early education settings. Seminars in Speech & Language, 30, 59-74.
Justice, L.M., McGinty, A.S., Cabell, S.Q., Kilday, C.R., Knighton, K., & Huffman, G. (2010). Language & literacy curriculum supplement for preschoolers who are academically at risk: A feasibility study. LSHSS, 41, 161-178.
Kaufman, S.S., Prelock, P.A., Weiler, E.M., Creaghead, N.A., & Donnelly, C.A. (1994). Metapragmatic awareness of explanation adequacy: Developing skills for academic success from a collaborative communication skills unit. LSHSS, 25, 174-180.
Koursoftas, A.D., Harmon, M.T., & Gray, S. (2009). The effect of Tier 2 intervention for phonemic awareness in a Response-to-Intervention model in low-income preschool classrooms. LSHSS, 40, 116-130.
Lovett, M.W., Borden, S.L., DeLuca, T., Lacerenza, L., Benson, N.J., & Brackstone, D. (1994). Treating the core deficits of developmental dyslexia: Evidence of transfer of learning after phonological- and strategy-based reading training programs. Developmental Psychology, 30, 805-822.
McLeod, S., Baker, E., McCormack, M., Wren, Y., Roulstone, S., Crowe, K., Masso, S., White, P., & Howland, C. (2017). Cluster-randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of computer assisted intervention delivered by educators for children with speech sound disorders. JSLHR, 60, 1891-1910.
Motsch, J., & Riehemann, S. (2008). Effects of ‘Context-Optimization’ on the acquisition of grammatical case in children with specific language impairment: An experimental evaluation in the classroom. IJLCD, 43, 683-698.
Myhill, D., & Warren, P. (2005). Scaffolds or straitjackets? Critical moments in classroom discourse. Educational Review, 57, 55-69.
Nelson, N.W., & Bahr, C.M., & Van Meter, A.M. (2004). The writing lab approach to language instruction and intervention. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Nelson, N.W., & Van Meter, A.M. (2006). Partnerships for literacy in a writing lab approach. Topics in Language Disorders, 26, 55-69.
Palincsar, A.S., Collins, K.M., Marano, N.L., & Magnusson, S.J. (2000). Investigating the engagement and learning of students with learning disabilities in guided inquiry science teaching. LSHSS, 31, 240-251.
Saddler & Asaro-Saddler (2010) Writing better sentences: Sentence-combining instructions in the classroom. Preventing School Failure, 54, 159-163.
Schmeck et al. (2014) Drawing pictures during learning from scientific text: Testing the generative drawing effect and the prognostic drawing effect. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 275-286.
Silliman, E.R., Bahr, R., Beasman, J., & Wilkinson, L.C. (2000). Scaffolds for learning to read in an inclusion classroom. LSHSS, 31, 265-279.
Smith-Lock, K.M., Leitao, S., Lambert, L., & Nickels, L. (2013). Effective intervention for expressive grammar in children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language & Comunication Disorders, 48, 265-282.
Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P.(Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Spencer, T.D., Peterson, D.B., Slocum, T.A., & Allen, M.M. (2015). Large group narrative intervention in Head Start preschools: Implications for response to intervention. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 13, 196-217.
Starling, J., Munro, N., Togher, L., & Arciuli, J. (2012). Training secondary school teachers in instructional language modification techniques to support adolescents with language impairment: A randomized controlled trial. LSHSS, 43, 474-495.
Suleman, S., McFarlane, L., Pollock, K., Schneider, P., Leroy, C., & Skoczylas, M. (2014). Collaboration: More than ‘working together’: An exploratory study to determine effect of interprofessional education on awareness and application of models of specialized service delivery by student speech-language pathologists and teachers. CJSLPA, 37, 298-307.
Throneberg, R.N., Calvert, L.K., Sturm, J.J., Paramboukas, A.A., & Paul, P.J. (2000). A Comparison of Service Delivery Models Effects on Curricular Vocabulary Skills in the School Setting. AJSLPA, 9, 10-20.
Turnbull, K.P., Anthony, A.B., Justice, L., & Bowles, R. (2009). Preschoolers’ exposure to language stimulation in classrooms serving at-risk children: The contribution of group size and activity context. Early Education & Development, 20, 53-79.
Valdez, F.M., & Montgomery, J.K. (1997). Outcomes from two treatment approaches for children with communication disorders in head start. Journal of Children’s Communication Development, 18, 65-71.
Van Kleeck, A., Gillam, R.B., & McFadden, T. (1998). A study of classroom-based phonological awareness training for preschoolers with speech and/or language disorders. AJSLPA, 7, 65-76.
Wilcox, M.J., Gray, S.I., Guimond, A.B., & Lafferty, A.E. (2011). Efficacy of the TELL language and literacy curriculum for preschoolers with developmental speech and/or language impairment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 278-294.
Wilcox, M.J., Kouri, T.A., & Caswell, S.B. (1991). Early language intervention: A comparison of classroom and individual treatment. AJSLPA, 1, 49-60.
Top Related