Collaborative Language and Speech Services - Alternative
Classroom Treatment
Description:
Collaborative Language and Speech Services -Alternative Classroom Treatment
(CLASS ACT) is defined as collaborative service delivery that allows the speech
language pathologist to assess and treat communication impairments within natural
settings and, on a more global level, affords educators and speech language
pathologists the opportunity to enhance the learning of children with and without
language/learning disabilities.
Population:
Elementary school, middle school, students with and without language/learning
disabilities.
Setting:
Elementary & middle school classrooms.
Key Word Descriptors:
CLASS ACT, language intervention, inclusive classrooms, FDLRS, assessment,
language, collaboration, integrated services.
Summary:
The integration of speech-language services provided in natural settings facilitates
communicative competence and promotes success. Natural settings include the
school, home, or employment area. Services are provided by the speech language
pathologist (SLP), or the classroom teacher (CT), parent, or job coach, with
the support of the SLP. Communicative competence, which is a goal for all students,
is defined broadly and includes speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Domico
(1993) states "assessment of adolescents should be structured to observe
language during actual communicative activities, within real contexts"
(pg. 29). A concern is functionality, which involves the evaluation of performance.
It is imperative to describe the difficulties with communication, as well as
why these complexities persist when assessing and diagnosing speech and language
problems in adolescents.
According to Domico (1993), there should be a four-phase approach to assessment
conducted by the SLP that begins in the general classroom environment. The process
is as follows: (a) descriptive analysis, which includes observation of communication,
such as the students’ conversations with peers or participation in class-wide
discussions, as well as students’ written assignments, (b) the first set
of diagnostic decisions are made, (c) explanatory analysis is completed where
the SLP determines why the student exhibits particular difficulties, (d) a diagnostic
decision making process ensues. It is during the final phase of the assessment
process that decisions for appropriate placement and recommendations for services
are made.
Elksnin and Capilouto (1994) surveyed 31 SLP’s from a school district
in the southeastern United States. The survey was constructed in order to obtain
the following information: (a) how they perceived their expertise as well as
the expertise of the CT’s, (b) the integrated service delivery approaches
they had adopted, (c) the speech-language services that they provided in the
classroom, (d) the characteristics of the population they serve. The advantage
of integrated services most frequently cited was the carry-over of speech and
language skills into other settings. Advantages for students were noted to be
the elimination of pullout sessions and the generalization of speech and language
skills to other settings. The SLP’s surveyed felt that the CT had a better
knowledge of the curriculum and therefore when they collaborated with them in
the classroom the SLP’s were better able to understand the curriculum goals.
The survey results also suggest that SLP’s feel that they are better able
to prevent future speech and language problems in at risk students by serving
whole classrooms of students.
Beck and Dennis (1997) surveyed 54 CT’s and 21 SLP’s in southern
Wisconsin, central Illinois, suburban Chicago, and at the Illinois State University
Laboratory School. The majority of both groups surveyed agreed that the SLP
has the capability to enhance the communication skills of non-targeted students
in the classrooms where they are working collaboratively with the CT. Including
classroom-based interventions from the SLP was noted by the groups surveyed
to enhance the carry over of newly learned skills and afford greater opportunities
for appropriate reinforcement. Some of the primary advantages of classroom based
interventions for students who require SLP services that were noted by the groups
include: Peer modeling, improved social interactions with peers, and full inclusion
of students in the general education setting. An advantage cited by the CT’s
surveyed was that they were better able to understand the SLP’s goals for
their students. Both teams ranked team teaching as the most appropriate collaborative
model, and the one teach one observe model was ranked as the least appropriate.
Both of the studies determined that the primary disadvantage the collaborative
classroom based service delivery model was difficulty finding an adequate amount
of time for planning. Raywid (1993) suggested that in order to find time for
collaboration, many schools must restructure the school day. She suggests some
general strategies that have been successfully utilized across the nation. Some
schools add the hours needed for collaboration by reallocating existing school
schedules, such as by changing to a year-round schedule, within which teachers
have time allocated for two or three day intensive collaborative planning during
the intercessions. Another example of a way to provide time for collaboration
is to begin a service-learning program. Each student has a semester long assignment
in which they provide community service, freeing teachers for meeting time during
one afternoon each week.
The development of alternative options is an important step in meeting the
needs of an increasingly diverse student population (Bauwens and Hourcade,1991).
In order to cooperatively teach with colleagues, it is important to come to
consensus agreement on philosophical, theoretical, and instructional practices.
Effective collaboration begins with good interpersonal skills, the ability to
resolve differences in professional practices, and open communication. Adequate
time for planning and collaboration is thought to be a factor in establishing
successful schools (Raywid, 1993). Classroom based interventions provide students
with the opportunity to be fully included in the general education classroom.
Composed by Alyce Klein
References:
Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. (1991). Making co-teaching a mainstreaming
strategy. Preventing School Failure,25(4), 19-24.
Beck, A., & Dennis, M. (1997). Speech-language pathologists' and teachers'
perceptions of classroom-based interventions. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in the Schools, 28(2), 141-151.
Damico, J. (1993). Language assessment in adolescents: Addressing critical
issues. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools,24(1), 29-35.
Elksinin, L., & Capilouto, G. (1994). Speech-Language pathologists perceptions
of integrated service delivery in school settings. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 25(4), 258-267.
Raywid, M. (1993). Finding time for collaboration. Educational Leadership,
( ), 30-34.
A summary of research for the classroom-based assessment of a collaborative
intervention program with kindergarten and first grade students
Farber, J.G., & Klein, E.R. (1999). Classroom-Based Assessment of
a Collaborative Intervention Program with Kindergarten and First Grade Students.
Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 30. 83-91.
Description of Students:
552 students from twelve kindergarten and first grade classrooms in six elementary
schools in Philadelphia participated in the study. All students passed hearing
and vision screenings and were not identified as special education students.
The schools that participated in the study were representative of the ethnic
and socioeconomic school populations in the Philadelphia area.
Description of Methodology:
The students were divided into three groups. The groups consisted of two
treatment groups and one control group at each school. Treatment group one was
comprised of one kindergarten class and one first grade class. These students
received direct, collaborative services from the SLP with the classroom teacher
three times a week for 2.25 hours throughout the school year. Related materials
and resources were supplied to teachers and parents. Treatment group two was
students from the control classes who were randomly chosen. These students participated
in the three weekly collaborative sessions, but did not receive related materials
or resources for teachers or parents. The control group was comprised of one
kindergarten and one first grade class who received no support from the SLP.
Summary of Findings:
After participating in the program for the school year, the students were
evaluated in the areas of speaking, listening, reading and writing using the
MAGIC (Maximizing Academic Growth by Improving Communication) Language Test
and the Teacher Questionnaire of Student Language Abilities from the School
District of Philadelphia. The results of the testing indicated that treatment
group one and treatment group two scored higher than the control group on all
five subtests.
Effective Instructional Practices Criteria:
Yes
1
The practice has clearly demonstrated theoretical
base in research
Yes
2
The practice has considered involvement
of educators, parents, business, and/or community representatives as
appropriate
Yes
3
The practice has replicable materials
Yes
4
There is a plan for providing follow-up
activities
Yes
5
There is a plan to evaluate practice effectiveness
Yes
6
The practice may be evaluated on stated
outcomes or objectives
Yes
7
The practice supports the Sunshine State
Standards or other Florida accountability efforts
A summary of research for infusing language enhancement into the reading
curriculum for disadvantaged adolescents
Fleming,J., & Forester, B. (1997). Infusing Language Enhancement
Into the Reading Curriculum for Disadvantaged Adolescents. Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in Schools. (28). 177-180.
Description of Students:
The students were classified as moderate-to-severely learning disabled
or mild-to-moderately mentally impaired. Many were also diagnosed as language
impaired.
Description of Methodology:
A Special Education Teacher and a Speech/Language Pathologist (SLP) collaborated
during instructional reading sessions to improve the students reading and language
skills. The students met with the reading teacher and an aide for four periods
each week in groups of 6-10. One period per week, the SLP led the class with
support from the reading teacher. The SLP created a language enhancement curriculum
for use during these sessions. Folders were created for each student, which
included the students' work in progress and reading goals from the IEP. The
teacher and SLP collaborated on the needs and abilities of the individual students.
They also worked together on goals for the students and how and what to assess.
A major focus was to motivate the students by selecting reading material
the students could relate to. This included brief newspaper articles, articles
from the school newspaper, and high-interest, relevant, low-level reading material.
Once reading material was selected specific strategies were used to improve
skills in the areas of metacognition/metalinguistics, phonology, and language
use. The strategies used to improve metacognition/metalinguistics included teaching
students what it meant to be active learners and apply it to reading tasks.
Some of the activities included exposure to various types of texts; such as,
learning to use context headings, boldface, and illustrations to predict meanings.
The strategies used to improve phonology involved drills in recognizing and
discriminating between phonemes, syllables, rhymes, and words; cloze work; syllabicating
words; matching sounds to symbols; and generating lists of rhymes. Computer
programs were also used to reinforce skills. The strategies used for improving
language use included interpreting plays on words and multiple meanings; developing
skills in interpreting figurative language; cloze reading activities; and code-switching
exercises.
Summary of Findings:
At the end of the program, the students had improved their skills in the
designated areas. These improvements were demonstrated in classroom drills,
nationally standardized tests and teacher/SLP observations. It was also observed
that reading fluency and determination had improved. Vocabulary, verbal reasoning,
phonology, and many interpretive tasks also improved.
A summary of research for making co-teaching a mainstreaming strategy
Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. (1991). Making Co-Teaching a Mainstreaming
Strategy. Preventing School Failure, 25(4), 19-24.
Summary:
In order to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse racial and ethnic population,
as well as groups of students with varying abilities, collaboration and cooperative
teaching will need to ensue. Cooperative teaching has been defined as an educational
approach in which general and special educators work cooperatively together
to meet the needs of a diverse student population. Team teaching, complementary
instruction, and supportive learning activities are three examples of options
in the team-teaching arrangement. The regular and special education teachers
share a roughly equivalent responsibility for a common-body of knowledge. In
complementary instruction, teachers maintain a primary responsibility for related
but separate sets of educational goals. Supportive learning activities supplement
the essential instructional content of presented lessons. "This model is
consistent with the NEA principle crucial to the effective function of schools
in the future." The principle is that students become active learners,
and that learning activities encourage student initiative. Effective cooperative
teaching begins with good interpersonal skills, an agreement about educational
philosophies and a resolution of differences and open communication.
Raywid, M. (1993). Finding Time for Collaboration. Educational Leadership,
30-34.
Summary:
Successful schools can be distinguished by providing teachers with ample time
to discuss, practice, inform, and critique each other and collaboratively design
materials. In order to provide time for collaboration, many schools have restructured
the school day and or week. The following are some general strategies that have
been successfully utilized:
schedule common lunch and preparation period for teachers collaborating.
students participate in community service one morning a week while teachers
meet.
increase class size by one or two students, which will fund a substitute.
This allows teachers to meet frequently.
year-round calendars with three week intersessions allow two or three day
meetings for teacher meetings and planning.
reschedule inservice days with 13 two-hour sessions instead of 3-5 day long
inservice meetings.
convert some instructional days into staff development time.
dismiss classes early on specified days with teachers contributing time
of their own.
lengthen the day for four days and shorten on the fifth.
"creative interpretation" of state requirements for instruction
allow some schools to shorten school week by half a day.
extend teachers work day.
In order to make collaboration beneficial to students and teachers, teachers
should not be asked to examine their programs or formulate new programs at the
end of the regular school day. If collaborative time is incorporated into the
school day, a prep period should come immediately before or after a common lunch
period allowing for an uninterrupted block of time. While scheduling time for
teacher collaboration is neither easy nor problem free, it is beneficial to
students and teachers.
