Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a vocabulary intervention delivered by teachers collaborating with speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the classroom as compared with teachers in a noncollaborating condition. Method: This quasi-experimental study employed a collaboration treatment condition (n = 2 collaborative pairs, n = 34 students) and a comparison condition (n = 2 noncollaborating teachers, n = 34 students). In both conditions, versions of the Vocabulary Scenario Technique were implemented. Third-grade students completed vocabulary assessments for three vocabulary tasks. Results on each of the measures were analyzed using a two-factor split-plot analysis of variance. Results: A significant interaction effect on the Words-in-Context (WIC) task, with a medium effect size (f = 0.28), supported the value-added impact of having the SLP collaborate directly with the teacher in implementing the approach. Gains on the Synonyms and Non-Example measures were not significantly different between the conditions, but large effects were found for all three tasks within the collaboration condition, whereas gains in the comparison condition showed large effects for the Synonyms task only and medium effects for the WIC and Non-Example tasks. Conclusions: SLPs' contributions within their collaborations were associated with gains that were larger than those made by students in classrooms where teachers did not collaborate with SLPs on a vocabulary task requiring application of word meanings in sentences. Clinical implications and areas for future research are discussed.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if a direct, explicit method of teaching vocabulary with the Vocabulary Scenario Technique -- General Education 16 Encounter (VSTGE16) protocol would yield gains in the vocabulary knowledge of fourth grade students in a general education classroom. Two research questions examined whether fourth grade students receiving VST-GE16 instruction with 16 instructor-led encounters per word, eight words taught per week for 90 min a week over 4 weeks demonstrated greater gains on a multiple-choice synonym test and a fill-in-the-blank words-in-context test than fourth grade students taught the same number of words, in the same time frame, using a vocabulary teaching method typically employed by a fourth grade teacher. Method: The study was a quasi-experimental design, with a pretest and posttest multiple-choice synonym and fill-in-the-blank words-in-context measures administered. Students with complete data sets were included in the analyses (synonym, N = 38; words-in-context, N = 37). Participants in both groups were taught eight curriculum vocabulary words per week for 90 min a week across four consecutive weeks (32 words). Results: An analysis of covariance on posttreatment outcomes yielded the following: The treatment group scored significantly higher on the synonym measure, F(1, 35) = 14.76, p < 0.001; g = 1.04, and the words-in-context measure, F(1, 34) = 43.66, p < 0.001; g = 1.59, than did the comparison group. Conclusions: The results indicated that the VST-GE16 protocol has potential as an effective, efficient method to use when directly teaching curriculum vocabulary words to fourth grade students in general education classrooms.

English learners (ELs) struggle with vocabulary learning and often evidence serious vocabulary gaps. It is challenging, especially for professionals who do not speak the native language of the students, to teach EL students vocabulary that supports academic learning, is compatible with classroom instruction, and considers their changing language proficiency levels. A compounding factor may be the additional presence of a language disorder. The purpose of this article is to provide a context for professionals and nonprofessionals, monolinguals and bilinguals, to work together in developing strong lexicons in ELs to support academic growth. Toward that end, the authors discuss the nature of the school-age EL population, vocabulary needs of this heterogeneous population, the need for collaboration in the wise use of available resources, a technique called the Vocabulary Scenario Technique designed for collaborative implementation, and guiding principles about vocabulary instruction with ELs that can be of use to researchers and practitioners.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine whether sentence combining with an explicit metalinguistic approach in comparison to typical science instruction was effective in improving written expression and understanding of comparison/contrast in science for eighth-grade students who struggle with literacy. Method: Eighty-four eighth-grade students who struggle with literacy participated in this study. The experimental group (n = 36) received the writing intervention of metalinguistic sentence combining (MSC) during their science class for a total of 400 min (20 intervention sessions, 20 min each), while the comparison group (n = 48) participated in their typical science instruction. Total science instruction time was held constant for both groups. All students completed pretests and posttests to determine an increase in (a) syntactic factors of academic science text such as longer sentence length and use of syntactic forms of connectives, targeted connectives, left embeddedness, and agentless passive voice when responding to a science compare and contrast writing prompt; and (b) listing similarities and differences between two science concepts on a graphic organizer. Results: Treatment was effective in improving the experimental group's score in listing similarities and differences between two science concepts on a graphic organizer. There were no significant differences between the two groups in their use of syntactic factors typical of academic text when responding to a science compare and contrast writing prompt. Conclusions: MSC was effective in improving the experimental student's ability to demonstrate understanding of comparison and contrast in science. Modifications to the MSC intervention may yield better results in the experimental group's post-treatment writing in future studies.

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to situate the recent language disorder label debate within a school's perspective. As described in two recent "The ASHA Leader" articles, there is international momentum to change "specific language impairment to developmental language disorder." Proponents of this change cite increased public awareness and research funding as part of the rationale. However, it is unclear whether this label debate is worthwhile or even practical for the school-based speech-language pathologist (SLP). A discussion of the benefits and challenges to a shift in language disorder labels is provided. Conclusions: Although there are important arguments for consistency in labeling childhood language disorder, the reality of a label change in U.S. schools is hard to imagine. School-based services are driven by eligibility through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which has its own set of labels. There are myriad reasons why advocating for the "developmental language disorder" label may not be the best use of SLPs' time, perhaps the most important of which is that school SLPs have other urgent priorities.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine whether sentence combining with an explicit metalinguistic approach in comparison to typical science instruction was effective in improving written expression and understanding of comparison/contrast in science for eighth-grade students who struggle with literacy. Method: Eighty-four eighth-grade students who struggle with literacy participated in this study. The experimental group (n = 36) received the writing intervention of metalinguistic sentence combining (MSC) during their science class for a total of 400 min (20 intervention sessions, 20 min each), while the comparison group (n = 48) participated in their typical science instruction. Total science instruction time was held constant for both groups. All students completed pretests and posttests to determine an increase in (a) syntactic factors of academic science text such as longer sentence length and use of syntactic forms of connectives, targeted connectives, left embeddedness, and agentless passive voice when responding to a science compare and contrast writing prompt; and (b) listing similarities and differences between two science concepts on a graphic organizer. Results: Treatment was effective in improving the experimental group's score in listing similarities and differences between two science concepts on a graphic organizer. There were no significant differences between the two groups in their use of syntactic factors typical of academic text when responding to a science compare and contrast writing prompt. Conclusions: MSC was effective in improving the experimental student's ability to demonstrate understanding of comparison and contrast in science. Modifications to the MSC intervention may yield better results in the experimental group's posttreatment writing in future studies. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha. 12735950, Secondary students in the United States do not exhibit the same abilities in literacy and science as secondary students from other industrialized nations. The term secondary typically is used to [...]

Gainful employment for adults in the United States currently requires high levels of literacy. As challenging as these requirements may be for the workforce at large, for adults who have a hearing loss (HL) and whose first spoken language is not English, the demands are especially problematic. Therefore, it is critical that educators prepare English learner (EL) K-12 students with HL for life beyond school by understanding and addressing the underlying language of curriculum. The authors explore the escalating literacy demands of the workforce and the corresponding spoken and written language demands of more rigorous K-12 curriculum standards. They highlight the specific challenges of EL children and adolescents with HL who are acquiring English as a second spoken language. They make the case for a more robust collaborative approach, involving multiple perspectives, rather than "teamwork," in addressing the needs of these students across the grades, with intercultural competence as a major component in engaging families as partners.

Purpose: School-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are often asked to adopt new policies or practices at the school, district, or state level. Professional learning (PL) opportunities usually accompany these changes but are often delivered in a one-size-fits-all workshop format. The authors challenge school-based SLPs and district leadership to consider PL in a new light, guided by data-based decision making to ultimately improve student outcomes. Method: This article discusses the research supporting the assessment and delivery of high-quality PL for school professionals, including SLPs, and a specific model for measuring change--the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM; Hall & Hord, 2015). An example of how CBAM was used to examine the adoption process with school-based SLPs in a large school district is provided. Conclusion: Based on the review of the literature, the current approach to PL experienced by most SLPs is problematic. High-quality PL should target improvement in student outcomes and should be focused, ongoing, supported, and evaluated.

A recent survey on implementation of Response to Instruction/Intervention (RTI) found 94% of participating schools implementing some level of RTI ("Global Scholar," 2011). Therefore, it is logical to assume that most educators have heard about the concepts at the heart of RTI, even though specific iterations and names of the frameworks may differ from place to place. They may know about multiple "tiers" of instruction and intervention, rooted in high-quality core instruction with sound assessment and data based decision making that informs instruction. The premise of this article is that a narrow focus on developing high quality RTI implementation within one's own immediate purview is necessary but insufficient. Professionals working directly with students need to assist in making RTI the comprehensive, system wide framework it is meant to be. They need to think and act beyond developing pockets of excellence in their own venues and work toward having a greater impact on the overall success of RTI. Five focal points are discussed as a blueprint for this work: (1) functioning as a leader; (2) working toward creating critical mass; (3) focusing on the intent of RTI; (4) challenging myths; and (5) cultivating collaborations. (Contains 1 table.)

Disciplinary literacy is an increasingly popular focal area in adolescent literacy. In disciplinary literacy, the discourse features of specific knowledge domains (e.g., literature, history, science, and math) assume major importance in understanding and constructing meaning in each discipline. Because language plays a significant role in disciplinary literacy, speech-language pathologists (SLPs), as professionals with expertise in language, can contribute in important ways to adolescents' proficiency in this area. This is especially true with adolescents who struggle, for whom difficulty understanding or manipulating language may be at the root of their problems. Work in disciplinary literacy is consistent with roles and responsibilities of SLPs in schools, as outlined by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2010). The authors explore specific ways in which SLPs may address adolescent literacy by working directly with adolescents who struggle or with their teachers to support classroom instruction in specific content domains. A major concept presented is that adolescents who struggle are likely to need work on more fundamental language and literacy elements in addition to those germane to specific disciplines.

This article discusses the Content Literacy Curriculum (CLC) as a framework for conceptualizing and implementing Response to Intervention (RTI) at the secondary level. It is our belief that the CLC offers an excellent RTI implementation framework for secondary schools interested in addressing literacy in the context of improved academic achievement as a schoolwide effort. CLC implementation can be accomplished within a general problem-solving approach to RTI. However, a few components may need amplification for the CLC to become a comprehensive RTI system: Universal screening must address all the important aspects of literacy, including writing; schools must develop a broader approach to progress monitoring; schools must pay closer attention to the scope and function of decision-making teams; and, although fluid movement across levels has always been an important component of the CLC, for RTI to work, greater attention to this aspect is needed. (Contains 4 figures.)

Purpose: This commentary is a personal reaction to A. G. Kamhi's (2007) article on the "narrow view" of reading and his suggestion that this view be adopted as a way to address the reading problems of children and adolescents. Method: In this article, I consider the narrow view of reading from an adolescent literacy perspective and discuss the practical implications of adopting this view in the schools. Discussion revolves around the complexities of reading comprehension, comprehension as a teachable set of complex processes, and the speech-language pathologist's role in reading comprehension. Conclusion: Although I acknowledge that the narrow view of reading may have merit, I opine that it may create more problems than it solves.

Students with language impairment often experience serious and far-reaching effects of reading comprehension problems on their academic performance. The complexity of the problems and the characteristics of effective intervention necessitate a collaborative approach among general education teachers, special education teachers, and speech-language pathologists. This article uses a case example of a 15-year-old 10th grader to present elements of a plan for creating and maintaining partnerships among professionals to support reading comprehension.

The inaugural issue of "Topics in Language Disorders" included articles by Roth and Perfetti and Pearson and Spiro that reflected the thinking of the time on reading comprehension instruction. In this article, the author reviews the general direction of those contributions in light of current thinking and offers a model for organizing the practices in reading comprehension that have an empirical base for students with reading disabilities. Components addressed include background knowledge, understanding text structures, and strategy use.

To date, research, development, and implementation efforts in responsiveness to intervention (RTI) approaches have focused on prevention and often identification of learning disabilities. In this article, the authors extend the conversation to considering an RTI-type approach as being useful in changing the way prevention and identification of language impairments are addressed in the schools. Current practices in serving students with language impairment are explored as a backdrop for considering new assessment, intervention, and program delivery approaches. Among the focal points in this discussion, RTI is presented as a possible alternative to the cognitive referencing approach to establishing language impairment eligibility. Other beneficial RTI factors are explored, including the utility of RTI as a prevention framework, universal screening, tiered instruction/intervention, and a teach-test-reteach approach. Specific suggestions are provided to researchers and clinicians, including placing emphasis on moving from a caseload to a workload approach to service delivery.

This article explores concerns of speech-language-pathologists who provide in-classroom speech-language services. Concerns include a fear of "watering down" therapy and becoming like classroom teachers. Two principles are offered to preserve the speech-language-pathologist's role identity and the integrity of services provided: maintaining a therapeutic focus and sharing the responsibility for student success. (Contains references.) (Author/DB)