SUSAN FAUCHEUXJANNA OETTINGwww.lsu.edu/

literacylearning/ASHA, 2001

COLLABORATIVE BASED THERAPY MODEL

• Lab serves 12-16 students per session

• Curriculum based language objectives– Focus on skills needed for school/life– Focus on compensatory strategies to overcome language

deficits

• Daily collaboration between special education faculty, target children, peer models

• Weekly/monthly collaboration with university personnel

GOAL OF THE LANGUAGE LITERACY LAB

• To provide intervention/remediation in receptive and expressive language skills, math problem solving, reading comprehension skills, and written language skills Work station/small group centered Collaborative service delivery model Multisensory instructional approach Curriculum based goals/objectives

LANGUAGE LAB FACILITY

Reading/VisualCenter

Writing/ManipulativeCenter

ComputerCenter

Net TV

ListeningCenter

Role-Play/Game Center

Net TVNetTV

LISTENING CENTER• Novels/stories under

headphones• Grammar and Math

to Rap Music• Computer games/

Internet research via Net TV

• Phonemic Awareness

• Listening Comprehension

WRITING/MANIPULATIVE CENTER

• Written work• Manipulative

activities• Journaling• Board Work• Overhead

Transparencies• Note taking

READING/VISUAL CENTER

• Board Games• Movies• TV/VCR

presentations• Group/Silent

Reading activities

• Accelerated Reader activities

ROLE-PLAY/GAME CENTER

• Role – Playing• Board Games• Net TV Activities• Team Competition• Study Skills• Test Taking• Art Work/Projects• Math activities

COMPUTER CENTER

• Computer Games• Computer Tests• Internet Research• Easy Book/Story

Writer• Grammar activities• E-Books• Teacher Resource

Center

FLOOR ACTIVITIES

• Floor Games• Hop-On Grammar• Living Sentences• Line Dancing• Art Projects• Puzzles• Map Skills• Cable TV viewing

STUDENT MAILBOXES/FOLDERS

• Student Data Folders

• Peer Tutor Sign-in

• Worksheet Mailboxes

• The Learning Tree

THE LEARNING TREE

• Grade level Branches

• Student leaves for 80% > mastery

• Student competition

• Visible accomplishments

• Salient rewards

STUDENT FOLDER FORMS

Student Log Forms

date of attendance

present/absent comments% of mastery

Student Data Form

student identification

IEP/evaluation information

medical information

student schedule

READING ACTIVITY

Orally answer comprehension questions

Determine main idea/predictions

Identify specific story details

•Teacher Directed•Peer tutor aided

MATH/READING/LANGUAGE ACTIVITY

Design Haunted House, draw maps

Internet researchCollect money,

count, make deposit

Write story on Easy Book

•Teacher Directed/•Peer-tutor/Para- Educator Monitored

GRAMMAR ACTIVITY• Teacher Directed• Peer tutor assisted

Identify parts of speechFormulate complex sentencesExpand sentences with

more complex structuresUnscramble sentencesIdentify incorrect sentence structures

FUNCTIONAL/THEMATICACTIVITIES

• Design, construct, and run Haunted House – students collect, count, and deposit money.

• Treasure Island-read story, build the island and characters, draw maps

• Scavenger hunt utilizing maps in the zoo in the rainforest section.

• Rain forest unit – write E-Book• Huckleberry Finn-read novel, take the trip• American Revolution – learn about the

people, customs, politics

Research Questions

• Who is served by the lab?

• Does the lab lead to improved skills of the children?

• How do children classified as language impaired differ from those on the special education caseload who do not receive this educational classification?

Who is Served?

• 44 children on special education caseload

22 Learning Disabled 8 Speech-Language Impaired

9 Speech-Language/Learning Disabled 5 Other

Measures of Student Performance

• Teacher evaluations

• Student evaluations

• Students’ GPA in 5 subjects

• Iowa National Percentiles

Teacher Evaluations

• Anonymous questionnaire collected Spring, 2001 – Have you visited the lab?

– Do you have students who attend lab?

– Did the SLP collaborate with you on a regular basis?

– Do you feel the lab has helped your students?

– Should the lab continue?

– Do you have any suggestions to improve the lab?

Results

• 15 teachers completed questionnaire

• All had visited lab, had students in lab, and reported weekly collaboration with SLP

• All felt the lab should continue

• Suggestions:– Larger facility, incorporate more math into lab

Student Questionnaires

• How does the lab help you with school?

• How does the lab hurt your school work?

• Should the lab be offered next year?

• How would you change the lab?

Results

• 33 students completed the anonymous questionnaire– 28 (85%) provided positive comments about

lab helping them– 28 (85%) felt the lab should continue– Suggestions:

• More advanced help, larger facility, have lab everyday, more tables, more peer tutors, let students select centers, let students work on homework

Student GPA

• Average GPA – English– Math– Reading– Social Science– Science

GPA

1999-2000

No Lab

Average GPA =1.67

5th = 1.81

6th = 1.49

7th = 1.30

8th = 2.08

2000-2001

Lab

Average GPA = 1.87

5th = 1.68

6th = 2.11

7th = 1.53

8th = 2.19

Student GPA by Quarter

YEAR

2000/20011999/2000

Mean

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Iowa National Percentiles

• 1998-1999 No Lab (n = 7)

• 1999-2000 No Lab (n = 14)

• 2000-2001 Lab (n=14)

• All analyses involve pair-wise comparisons (child is compared to him/herself)

Results

Iowa Composite Percentiles1999 29.71 (20.68)

2000 28.64 (19.85)

2001 38.57 (15.60) t(13) = 2.70, p = .018 *

Math differences t(13) = 2.61, p = .02 *

Writing differences t(13) = 3.20, p =.007 *

Iowa Composite Scores

Bars show Means

1999 2000 2001

Year

10

20

30

40

50

60

Per

cen

tile

Other Indicators of Success

• 1999-2000 50% of 8th grade students in special education graduated.

• 2000-2001 70% of 8th grade students in special education graduated.

• All students completed Treasure Island Reading Comprehension Test with 80% during Spring, 2001.

Writing from Journals

• Kranz, L. (1999). All about me: A keepsake journal for kids. Flagstaff, AZ: Rising Moon.

• Fall 2000 at beginning of school year

• Spring 2001 at end of school year– 3 journal entries each semester

Results

• Fall, 2000

– Total utterances per entry = 12.80

– Difference word roots per entry = 46.65

– Use of complex syntax in utterances = 4.80

• Spring, 2001

– Total utterances per entry = 16.05

– Different word roots per entry = 60.95

Use of complex syntax in utterances = 6.20

Question 3

• How do children with a history and current classification of speech-language impairment differ from others in special education that do not carry this educational classification?

– 10 speech-language impaired/+/-LD– 10 learning disabled only

Measures

• Standardized language tests– Grey Oral Reading Test– Test of Auditory-Perceptual Skills– Test of Adolescent Language– Clinical Evaluation of Language Functions

• Oral language sample analyses• Written language sample analyses• Teacher ratings of communication skills• Grades

Results

• No statistical differences, but trends

• Standardized language tests – Children with speech-language classification scored lower than

those without classification.

• Language samples – Children with speech-language classification produced more

language with greater complexity and diversity than those without classification.

• Teacher ratings– Children with speech-language classification received higher

ratings than those without classification.

Summary

• Lab is working– Teacher/Student evaluations

– Student grades

– Student standardized test scores

– Student graduation rate

• Lab meets the needs of children traditionally served by speech-language clinicians as well as meets the needs of others in special education.