benefits of slp-educator collaboration in classrooms ... · • collaboration leads to better basic...

©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)


• 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)


• 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


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


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


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


• 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


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!


• 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)


• 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


• 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)


4


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S&Lneeds All

Vocabularyte

stsc

oregain

Pullout

Classroom-based

Collaborativeco-teaching

*

*

Created based on reported data


• 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


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



5

05

101520253035404550

High-risk Low-risk High-risk Low-risk

Narra5veInterven5on Comparison

Vocabu

laryscore(/80)

Pre

Post


All children in experimental classroom made gains on vocabulary with greatest gains observed for the low-risk group

Lowest kids showed the least benefit


• 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





• 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

https://usuworks.usu.edu/Details.cfm?ProdID=32&category=2


6


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)


• Collaborative classroom model with at-risk K/gr.1– Improved phonological awareness– Improved generalized vocabulary

• Highly suggestive of added value







• 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


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


• 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


• 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)


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


• 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

* *


8


• 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


• 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




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


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


• 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


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



• Classroom-based intervention– Language opportunities might be similar to that

provided during pull-out sessions– Not efficient for goals focused on speech

production




o Improvements, not mastery? • Literacy-related

üPhonological awareness – compelling evidenceüEmergent literacy – compelling evidenceüSchool age curriculum-based language – preliminaryoWriting – practice-based evidence

• Speechüsuggestive negative evidence


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

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.uwo.ca/fhs/lwm/

http://www.canadianslp.blogspot.com/

http://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.

benefits of slp-educator collaboration in classrooms ... · • collaboration leads to better basic...

Documents