School-Age Language Intervention - American Speech-Language ...

School-Age Language Intervention: Writing Meaningful Goals and Monitoring Progress

Julie Wolter, PhD, C CC-SLP j u l i e , . w o l te r @ u s u . e d u U t a h S t a te U n i v e r s i t y

Teresa Ukrainetz , PhD , CCC-SLP t u k r a i n e @ u w yo . e d u Univer sity of W yo m i n g

Catherine Ross , MS, CCC-

Get Your Game On!

SLP

C r o s s 1 u w yo . e d u Univer sity of W yo m i n g

Jill Andrus, MS, C CC-SLP [email protected] U t a h S t a te U n i v e r s i t y

Framework Teresa Ukrainetz

Goals Cathy Ross & Jill Andrus

Teaching/ Measuring Progress Julie Wolter

Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

Case Studies Cathy Ross & Jill Andrus

Meaningful?… We always say this but what does it mean? Meaningful = contextualized Contextualized = in context, part of the contexts of life Contexts of life = school School = Educational success Okay, but how does this translate into dx, goals, tx, and progress monitoring? Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

3

THE WAY INTO BEING MEANINGFUL  SLPs treat skills (+ behaviors + strategies + processes…)  But skills+ do not exist in isolation  Skills are deployed in activities, for reasons, with motivations, under particular conditions, in orchestration with many other skills Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

4

WHOLE ACTIVITIES  Whole activities have reasons or purposes beyond tx  AKA “purposeful activities”  More than tx drills with entertaining twists  Teaching skills-in-activities also called:  Contextualized skill tx (Ukrainetz, 2006)  Activity-based tx (Bricker et al., 1998)  Concentrated-normative (Rice, 1995)  Naturalistic (? Everyone)  Hybrid (Fey, 1986) Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

5

WHAT ARE WHOLE ACTIVITIES THAT MATTER IN SCHOOL? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Conducting a science experiment Understanding an event in history book Authoring an imaginative narrative Giving a science presentation Composing a descriptive essay Participating in a small group discussion…



Just go through a student’s day to find whole activities that matter for educational success Or check out Standards & Benchmarks (but more on that later…)




6

SO HOW DO WE TREAT ACTIVITIES?? We don’t, we treat skills, but as skills-inactivities, as parts of the whole Situated learning: Skill acquisition involves not only what is learned, but how it is learned and how is used (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989) Based on Soviet activity theory (Leontiev, 1981; Wertsch, 1981)


7

COMPONENTS OF A PURPOSEFUL ACTIVIT Y Motive: Underlying emotional force Purpose: Reasons or goals of the activity Condition: Facilitating and constraining features Steps & Strategies: Conscious actions to achieve the purpose Skills & Processes: Unconcious, automated operations Ukrainetz (1998, 2006) Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

8

Activity Analysis –motives  What motivates this student in this activity? Internal locus of control (Self-direction & care for others)  Esteem (Feelings of success & self-respect)  Academics (Knowledge & skills competencies)  Belongingness (Sense of trust, acceptance, care)  Safety (School structure & discipline)  Physiology (Hunger, thirst, attention) Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of basic needs


9

Activity analysis – purpose When a student engages in an activity, does he know why he does it? The student is writing sentences Does he know he is making a story that should entertain and make sense to others? Or is it all about just getting 5 correct sentences down and crossing it off his list?

Activity purpose is not the tx goal, but the daily life reason for the activity Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

10

Activity analysis – Skills & strategies  What does the student need to do to in the activity?  What does he do competently? 1. Come up with story ideas 2. Decide on setting, character, and problem…

 What does he do poorly?

1. Use descriptive adjectives 2. Use relative clauses to give info about characters 3. Provide motivations and attempts in episodes 4. Sequence story events 5. Spell words 6. Stay on task…  Which will you systematically target as goals in tx?  Which will you ignore or compensate to carry out the activity? Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

11

Activity analysis – Facilitating and Constraining Conditions  Under what conditions does the student have this activity in the classroom?  What is helpful? What is hurtful?  Demands? Distractions?  How can you set up the activity in the speech room so there are more helpful than hurtful conditions?  But maintain the motive, the purpose, and the main skills and strategies involved in the activity How can you simplify but maintain the whole? And teach the skills that form the whole? Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

12

SO WHAT MAKES AN ACTIVIT Y  TX?  Common elements of success in tx efficacy research  Explicit, intensive, and supportive (Torgesen et al., 2004, Berninger et al., 2003)  Intensive, focuses attention, presents multiple trials, vary task complexity systematically, and reward progress (Gillam, Loeb, & Friel-Patti, 2001; Gillam et al., 2008)  Across disorder, goal, approach, and procedure  Quality > approach


13

RAISE IN TX Critical Elements of Tx

Repeated opportunities for learning & practice Attention and engagement Intensity of instruction S ystematic learning support E xplicit skill focus (Ukrainetz, 2006 with an added A) Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

14

The Continuum of Instruction –Regular to Therapeutic R: Few ⇒ Some ⇒ Many A: Instructions ⇒ Plus Reminders ⇒ Constant Structure I: Class ⇒ Group ⇒ Individual; Rare ⇒ Regular ⇒ Frequent S: Little ⇒ Some ⇒ Lots E: Implicit ⇒ Apparent ⇒ Explicit (meta)  The specifics depend on the skill being taught  Reading vs. phonemic awareness  Narrative structure vs. expository structure  Set of vocabulary vs. word learning strategies RTI & SLP

15

BACK TO SKILLS IN ACTIVITIES  Activity analysis and RAISE provides guidance for tx of skills within purposeful educational activities  But how do we structure tx to accomplish this?  And how do we measure progress on skills in activities?  Within a skills-in-activities, whole-part framework (Gillam et al., 1995; Gillam & Ukrainetz, 2006) And that means what? Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

16

THE GAME IS THE AIM!

Skill 1 (baskets)

Skill2 (dribble)

Skill3 (passing)

GAME (basketball) Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

17

TEACHING DRIBBLING OR BASKETBALL?  Teaching dribbling without the game?  Drills on skills with stickers for rewards  Just dribble, dribble, dribble with a private coach  Make that dribbling fun  Learn to dribble really well

 Trust that dribbling will transfer to the game going on in the gym  If it doesn’t, the student didn’t choose to apply his skills  But the private coach did his job  And why the student doesn’t like to play the game, the coach can’t imagine Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

18

OR THIS COACHING HIERARCHY, WITH MASTERY AT EACH STEP? 1. Bounce a ball 2. Dribble a ball 3. Dribble and shoot 4. Dribble, move, and shoot 5. Dribble, move, and pass 6. Dribble and pass with an opposing player 7. Dribble, move, and pass with an opposing player 8. Dribble, move, and pass with three on each side 9. Play the game – uhoh, too late, the year is over, maybe next year… Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

19

HOW ABOUT THIS WHOLE-PART VERSION OF COACHING? 1. Play a chaotic, poor, but fun whole basketball game 2. Work on a dribbling drill, a passing drill, a shooting drill 3. Play a less chaotic, but still fun basketball game 4. Work on skill drills a bit more 5. Play an almost orderly, almost skillful, fun game 6. Work on dribbling in the game, passing in the next game, shooting in the next game 7. Take a break and just play the game 8. Back to skill drills, but no worries, another game is coming up… Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

20

TEACHING THE COMMUNICATION GAMES OF LIFE  Teach the game  Teach the skills needed to play  Inside the games as integrated play (the whole)  Outside the games as skill drills (the parts)  With systematic scaffolding everywhere from the coach

 Track performance  Keep the score for the game  Track the stats on skills in the game  Add up performance in skill drills

But remember – the GAME is the aim! Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

21

THERAPY LINKED TO STANDARDS: SELECTING A GAME


Basketball , soccer, h ockey, or polo?

22

THERAPY LINKED TO STANDARDS Tx goals linked to state academic standards and benchmarks Standards and benchmarks may list the game or component skills The aim of tx is still the game Tx goals list the game (purposeful activity) and the target skills

The goal is achieved when the game is played at a “proficient” performance level Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

23

K-12 STANDARDS Speaking and Listening • Inclusion of formal and informal talk Language • Using standard English in formal writing and speaking  Determining word meanings and word nuances  Acquiring general academic and domainspecific words and phrases Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

24

K-12 Standards continued… Reading • Foundational Skills • Print concepts (K−1) • Phonological awareness (K−1) • Phonics and word recognition (K−5) • Fluency (K−5) • Reading Comprehension • Balance of literature and informational texts

Writing • •

Writing informative/explanatory texts Writing narratives


25

COMMON CORE STANDARDS Common Core Standards http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards

 IPAD APP:  EZ Common Core at the App. store


26

TRANSLATING BENCHMARKS TO TX GOALS  Requires strategic use to result in individualized, appropriate tx goals  Check the standard, then check the benchmarks  Third grader Sally will produce oral narratives at X criterion: 1. Cohesive pronoun reference (Sue, she, she) 2. Relative clauses (Sue was a girl who loved frogs) 3. Elaborated episode (complication, internal response, attempt, consequence, reaction) 4. Self-appraisal (How did I do?) Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

27

3 RD GRADE WRITING STANDARD & BENCHMARKS STANDARD: Students use the writing process and use appropriate strategies to write a variety of expressive and expository pieces 1.For cohesion – LA3.2A.4: Students use grade-level-appropriate conventions of spelling, mechanics, punctuation, grammar, and usage such as use of pronouns, use of ar ticles, capitalization of holidays or historical periods, and use of commas with city and state, in dates, and in addresses. 2.For relative clauses – LA3.2A.3: Students write a variety of grammatically correct sentences and recognize voice in their own and others’ writing.


28

More Benchmarks – goal LINKS 1. For episodes – LA3.2B.2: Students write and share literar y texts (stories, journals and poems) using grade-levelappropriate strategies such as providing a context within which action takes place, including well-chosen details to develop the plot, and providing insight into why the selected event is memorable. 2. For self-review – LA3.2A.6: Students use strategies to draft and revise writing such as focusing on one topic; using elements of a specific genre; and checking for clarity, organization, and descriptive details. (WSBE, 2008, p.28)


29

3 RD GRADE WRITING PERFORMANCE LEVELS  Advanced – Not our concern

Below Basic – Not our aim

 Proficient – Write with an intended purpose and audience with evidence of voice and format. Their writing shows logical organization. Ideas are suppor ted with sufficient, relevant details. Sentence structure is varied and correct. Proficient writers demonstrate reasonable control of conventions.  Basic – Need suppor t to write with evidence of intended purpose and audience. Their writing shows some organization with minimal awareness of voice. Ideas are evident but suppor ting details may be minimal or irrelevant. Sentences have some variety with few errors in structure. Word choice is generally correct and there is some control of conventions. (WSBE, 2008, p. 29) 30 Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

SOCIAL STUDIES BENCHMARKS: IDEAS FOR TX SKILLS-IN-ACTIVITIES  SS4.3.1: Students describe the importance of major resources, industries, and economic development of the local community and Wyoming  SS4.3.2: Students describe different ways that people earn a living in the local community and in Wyoming  Skills in these describing activities?  Descriptive discourse  Curricular vocabulary  Seeking word meanings  Adjectives  Elaborated noun phrases… Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

31

6 TH GRADE LEVEL STANDARD FOR INFORMATIONAL TEXT  LA6.1A.2  Students understand grade-level-appropriate technical and subject-specific vocabulary.  LA6.1A.3  Students comprehend main idea and supporting details in grade-level-appropriate texts through interpretation, inference and analyzing, and read on both the literal and inferential levels, supplying textual evidence, and prior knowledge. Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

32

BACK TO THE GAME ANALOGY

Skill 1 (baskets)

Skill2 (dribble)

Skill3 (passing)

GAME (basketball) Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

33

TEACH THE GAME AND SKILLS Teach in whole-part-part-part-whole format

(Ukrainetz &

Gillam, 2006)

1. Start with a storybook or expository text for skill introduction 1. Middle are multiple focused activities on each skill SEMANTICS: defining words, generating, webbing SYNTAX : sentence expansion, sentence combining NARRATIVE : story grammar components, pictography 2. End with a story creation or expository project for integration of skills (oral or written) Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

34

MULTI-SKILL EXPOSITORY GOAL  By 10/07/2012, when participating in a book discussion, Billy will improve expository discourse by summarizing main ideas and details using targeted vocabulary from paragraphs read aloud with 90% accuracy and low clinician scaffolding as measured by progress monitoring SLP rubric. GAME

book discussion

SKILLS

identify main ideas identify details learn vocabulary read paragraph aloud

SCAFFOLDING


35

SINGLE-SKILL EXPOSITORY GOALS 1. By 10/07/2012, when par ticipating in a book discussion, Billy will improve expositor y discourse by summarizing main ideas and details from paragraphs read aloud with 90% accuracy and low clinician scaffolding as measured by progress monitoring SLP rubric. 2. By 10/07/2012, when par ticipating in a book discussion, Billy will improve expositor y discourse using targeted vocabular y from textbook with 90% accuracy and low clinician scaffolding as measured by progress monitoring SLP rubric.


36

2 ND GRADE LEVEL STANDARD FOR INFORMATIONAL TEXT LA2.1C Students demonstrate understanding of informational text LA2.1C.3 Students use a variety of source to gather information, such as table of contents, charts, informational books, and guest speakers.


37

EXPOSITORY GOAL  10/07/2012, when par ticipating in a class discussion, Billy will improve expositor y discourse by asking and answering “wh” questions about details from an informational book read to him with 70% accuracy and low clinician suppor t. GAME

class discussion

SKILLS

answer “wh” questions ask “wh” questions

SCAFFOLDING

read book sections aloud


38

2 ND GRADE LEVEL STANDARD FOR NARRATIVE DISCOURSE  1RL2 – Retell stories, including key details, and demonstrate understanding of their central message or lesson  1RL3 – Describe characters, settings, and major events in a story, using key details  2SL5 – Tell a story or recount an experience with appropriate facts and relevant, descriptive details, speaking audible in coherent sentences  1L1e – Use verbs to convey a sense of past, present, and future  2L6 – Use words and phrases acquired through conversations, reading and being read to, and responding to texts including using adjectives and adverbs to describe Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

MULTI-SKILL NARRATIVE GOAL By 06/04/2011 , when par ticipating in a stor y retell, Andrea will improve narrative discourse, by retelling a stor y with stor y grammar elements, targeted vocabular y, and correct past tense verbs with 80-90% accuracy and low clinician scaffolding as measured by progress monitoring rubric. GAME

narratives

SKILLS

narrative story grammar components (initiating event, attempt consequence) vocabulary past-tense –ed

SCAFFOLDING

retelling 1 story, questioning, reminders, physical prompts Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

SINGLE-SKILL NARRATIVE GOALS 1. By 6/07/2012, when par ticipating in a narrative retell, Andrea will improve narrative discourse, by retelling a stor y with stor y grammar elements with 80-90% accuracy and low clinician scaffolding as measured by progress monitoring rubric. 2. By 6/07/2012, when par ticipating in a narrative retell, Andrea will use targeted vocabular y with 80-90% accuracy and low clinician scaffolding as measured by progress monitoring rubric. 3. By 6/07/2012, when par ticipating in a narrative retell, Andrea will demonstrate correct past tense verbs with 8090% accuracy and low clinician scaffolding as measured by progress monitoring rubric. Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

41

SOME SUGGESTED RESOURCES FOR GETTING IN THE GAME


42


43

NARRATIVE, SYNTAX, SEMANTICS RESOURCES •

Narratives, Language Intervention and Literature Units 



•

Gillam, R. B., & Ukrainetz, T.A. (2006). Language intervention though literature-based units. In Ukrainetz, T.A. (Ed.), Contextualized Language Intervention: Scaffolding PreK-12 Literacy Achievement. (pp.59-94). Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications. Ukrainetz, T.A. (2006). Teaching narrative structure: coherence, cohesion, and captivation. In Ukrainetz, T.A. (Ed.), Contextualized Language Intervention: Scaffolding PreK-12 Literacy Achievement. (pp.195246). Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.

Syntax  

Nippold, M. (2006). Later language development. Austin, TX:Pro-Ed. Wallach, G. and Miller, L. (1988). Language intervention and academic success. Boston, MA: College-Hill Publications.

 Semantics 



Beck, I. L., & M. G. McKeown. (2001). Text Talk: Capturing the benefits of read-aloud experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55, 10-20. Gerber, S. (1993). Language-related learning disabilities: Their nature and treatment. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

44

PRAGMATICS, SPELLING, READING RESOURCES  Pragmatics  Brinton, B. Robinson, L. and Fuiki, M. (2009). Description of a program for social language intervention: “If you can have a conversation, you can have a relationship.” Language Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 35, 283-290.

 Spelling and Reading  Masterson, J.J., & Apel, K. (2007). Spelling and word-level reading. In A. Kamhi, J.J. Masterson, & K. Apel, (Eds.), Clinical Decision Making in Developmental Language Disorders (pp.249-266). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.  Wolter, J.A. (2009). A systematic research review of word study treatment practices for the speech-language pathologist. EvidenceBased Practice Briefs, 3, 43-58. Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

45

READING COMPREHENSION, WRITING RESOURCES  Reading Comprehension Ukrainetz, T.A. & Ross, C. (2006). Text comprehension: Facilitating active and strategic engagement. In Ukrainetz, T.A. (Ed.), Contextualized Language Intervention: Scaffolding PreK-12 Literacy Achievement. (pp.503-64). Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications. Westby, C. (2005). Assessing and remediating text comprehension problems. In H. Catts & A. Kamhi (Eds.) Language and reading disabilities – 3 rd Ed. (pp. 157-232). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

 Writing Singer, B.D., & Bashir, A.S. (2004). EmPOWER: A strategy for teaching students with language learning disabilities how to write expository text. In Silliman, E.R. & Wilkinson, L.C. (Eds.), Language and Literacy Learning in Schools. (pp. 239-272). New York: Guilford Press. Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

46

SPECIFIC NARRATIVE/EXPOSITORY TOOLS  Narrative-Based Units  Text Talk (Tier 2 vocab) (Beck & McKeown)  http:teacher.scholastic.com/products/texttalk/index.htm

 The Magic of Stories: Literature Based Intervention (Strong & North, 1996)

 Expositor y  Expanding Expression Tool (Smith)  http://www.expandingexpression.com/data_research.html


47

ONE UTAH RESOURCE  The Utah State Office Education website has many additional resources for instruction. Here is one more example.  Visit this weblink:  http://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/readingfirst/text_talk.htm

 Read the information about Text Talk.  At the bottom of this information about Text Talk, there is a link for: Combined Text Talk Lessons.  Click on this link. It will take you to a database of Text Talk Lessons for 101 books.


48

SCAFFOLDING AND PROGRESS MONITORING


49

CONTEXTUALIZED SCAFFOLDING  Activity has larger purpose than the targeted skill  Child performs with considerable structural and interactive support initially  Increasing mastery of skill and decreased assistance  Progress monitoring reflective of scaffolding EXAMPLE: Teaching language through literature units (narrative) and science projects (expository)


50

SCAFFOLDING IN THE ZONE  Zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978)  Student should be “in the zone” of optimal learning  What can be achieved with adult scaffolding  Dynamic assessment: what supports/scaffolds result in success • Being therapeutic involves keeping student in their zone • Actively involved, with challenge and support, neither bored nor frustrated • Right group size and mix • Right skill, activity, and scaffolding Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

51

ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT (ZPD) (VYGOTSKY, 1978)


52

T YPES OF SCAFFOLDING  Structural scaffolds  Features of the context that can be preplanned and purposeful  Provide predictability and repetition  Selection of materials, tools, and modifying environmental conditions  EXAMPLES:  Planned whole activities (literature units)  Routines  Peer support

(Paul, 2007; Ukrainetz, 2006) Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

53


54

•

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream class. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

55

Diamond, L. & Gutlohn, L. (2006). The Vocabulary Handbook. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.


56

Harvey, S. & Goudvis, A. (2007). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for understanding and engagement 2nd edition. Markham, Ontario: Pembrooke Publishers.


57

T YPES OF SCAFFOLDS Interactive scaffolds Responsive moves on the part of the clinician to facilitate success Response scaffolds Linguistic scaffolds

(Paul, 2007; Ukrainetz, 2006) Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

58

RESPONSE SCAFFOLDS (UKRAINETZ, 2006)

Model the response Repeat and emphasize Cue through physical signals Pause before providing the answer Provide part of the answer Provide the answer and have the child repeat

LINGUISTIC SCAFFOLDS (UKRAINETZ, 2006) Expand the utterance into a better form Extend the utterance with new information Recast into a new form Focused contrast between two forms

PROGRESS MONITORING


61

NATIONAL STANDARDS Level 4: Advanced

Level 3: Proficient

Level 2: Basic

Level 1: Below Basic

A student scoring at this level is advanced on measured standards and objectives of the Core Curriculum in this subject. The student's performance indicates students can used their knowledge in complex situations and can analyze, synthesize, and communicate information and ideas A student scoring at this level is proficient on the measured standards and objectives of the Core Curriculum in this subject. The student's performance indicates sufficient understanding and application of key curriculum concepts. A student scoring at this level is basic on the measured standards and objectives of the Core Curriculum in this subject. The student's performance indicates that he/she ineffectively uses or requires assistance to use concepts and skills to acquire, analyze, and communicate information and ideas. A student scoring at this level is not yet proficient on measured standards and objectives of the Core Curriculum in this subject. The student's performance indicates minimal understanding and application of key curriculum concepts and requires extensive support or provide little or no evidence in meeting the standard. Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

62

DETERMINE YOUR LEVELS What is functional? How is this different than an emerging performance level? What scaffolds (structural or interactive) might I provide? What strategies might the child use? How many levels of scaffolding might be appropriate? How accurate or how much scaffolding will determine levels of performance? Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

63

Kovach, T. (2009). Augmentative and Alternative Communication Profile: A Continuum of Learning. East Moline, IL: Linguisystems.


64

RUBRIC SAMPLES


65

RUBRIC SAMPLES

Adapted from: Ehren, T.C., & Ehren, B. J. (2007). Legal Mandates: impetus of improving assessment diagnosis, treatment of school-age adolescents with developmental language disorders. In A. Kamhi, J.J. Masterson, & K. Apel, (Eds.), Clinical Decision Making in Developmental Language Disorders (pp. 55-76). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.


66

Scaffolding in context “the game”


67

RUBRIC EXAMPLE TEMPLATE


68

RUBRIC EXAMPLE TEMPLATE


69

CASE EXAMPLES


70

EXPOSITORY CASE EXAMPLE 1 Middle school student Physical Science class topic – Chemistry Clinician presented Library books with 3 different chemistry topics Student chose “Periodic Table” Method: Reciprocal Teaching


71

EXPOSITORY CASE EXAMPLE 1 Clinician read aloud selected paragraphs Student identified main idea and details for each paragraph (accuracy rate is data for goal) Student and Clinician selected vocabulary Student defined vocabulary and used in sentences (accuracy rate is data for goal) Student chose final project format, created and presented project Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

72

EXPOSITORY CASE EXAMPLE 1


73

EXPOSITORY CASE EXAMPLE 2 Early elementary student Class discussion topic - pets Clinician presented 3 books on various pets Student chose “dogs”  Method/materials: Expanding Expression Tool


74

EXPOSITORY CASE EXAMPLE 2  Student did “book walk” and Clinician read aloud sections of book (sections should answer main questions about topic)  Student used EET to organize information: group, do, made of, etc  Student asked and answered questions about topic (accuracy rate is data for goal)  Student assisted in producing final project format  Student presented final project


75

EXPOSITORY CASE EXAMPLE 2


76

SINGLE-SKILL NARRATIVE GOALS 1. By 6/07/2012, when par ticipating in a narrative retell, Andrea will improve narrative discourse, by retelling a stor y with stor y grammar elements with 80-90% accuracy and low clinician scaffolding as measured by progress monitoring rubric. 2. By 6/07/2012, when par ticipating in a narrative retell, Andrea will use targeted vocabular y with 80-90% accuracy and low clinician scaffolding as measured by progress monitoring rubric. 3. By 6/07/2012, when par ticipating in a narrative retell, Andrea will demonstrate correct past tense verbs with 8090% accuracy and low clinician scaffolding as measured by progress monitoring rubric. Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

77

NARRATIVE EXAMPLE 1


78

RUBRIC FOR SINGLE-SKILL GOALS IN THE GAME

MULTI-SKILL NARRATIVE GOAL By 06/04/2011, when par ticipating in a stor y retell, Andrea will improve narrative discourse, by retelling a stor y with stor y grammar elements, targeted vocabular y, and correct past tense verbs with 80-90% accuracy and low clinician scaffolding as measured by progress monitoring rubric. GAME

narratives

SKILLS

narrative story grammar components (initiating event, attempt consequence) vocabulary past-tense –ed

SCAFFOLDING

retelling 1 story, questioning, reminders, physical prompts

NARRATIVE EXAMPLE 2

NARRATIVE EXAMPLE 2

HOLISTIC RUBRIC FOR MULTI-SKILL GOALS IN THE GAME

THE AIM IS THE GAME!

The Game is made of Skills & Scaffolds Link the Game to Core Standards through Goals  Goals Direct the Progress Monitoring Progress Monitoring is a Reflection of Scaffolding Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

84

REFERENCES Beck, I. L., & M. G. McKeown. (2001). Text Talk: Capturing the benefits of readaloud experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55, 10-20. Berninger, V.W., Vermeulen, K., Abbott, R.D., McCutchen, D., Cotton, S., Cude, J. , et al., (2003). Comparison of three approaches to supplementary reading instruction for low-achieving second-grade readers. Language, Speech and Hearing Ser vices in the Schools, 34, 101-116. Brinton, B. Robinson, L. and Fujiki, M. (2009). Description of a program for social language intervention: “If you can have a conversation, you can have a relationship.” Language Speech and Hearing Ser vices in the Schools, 35, 283-290. Diamond, L. & Gutlohn, L. (2006). The Vocabulary Handbook. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Ehren, B. J. (2000). Maintaining a therapeutic focus and shared responsibility for student success: Keys to in-classroom speech-language services. Language, Speech and Hearing Ser vices in the Schools, 32, 219-229. Gerber, S. (1993). Language-related learning disabilities: Their nature and treatment. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

85

REFERENCES  G ibbo ns , P. ( 2002) . Sc a f fo ld i n g la n g u a g e s c a f fo ld in g le a r n in g : Te a c h in g s e c o n d la n g u a g e le a r n e r s in th e m a in str e a m c la s s . Po rts mo ut h , NH : H e ine ma n n.  Gil l am, R. B. et al. ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Improv in g narrat i v e abilit ie s o f c hil dre n wi t h l ang u ag e di sabi l i t i e s : Who le lang u ag e and lang u ag e sk ills appro ac h es . In M. Fey et al . ( E ds. ) , Commu ic a t i i on in ter ve n t i o n for s c hool- a ge c hid r en ( pp. 1 4 5 - 1 8 2 ) . B al t i mo r e: Bro o kes.  Gi l l am, R. B. et al. ( 2 0 0 8 ) . E f fi c ac y o f Fast Fo rWo rd- L a ng u ag e i nter v e nt i o n i n sc ho o lag e c hi l dr e n wit h lang u ag e impairm e nt : A rando miz e d c o nt ro ll ed t ri al . J ou r n a l of S p eec h La n gu a g e a n d He a r in g Res ea r c h, 51 , 97 - 1 1 9 .  Gi l l am, R. B. et al. ( 2 0 01 ) . L o o k i ng bac k : A summa r y o f 5 ex pl o rato r y st udies o f Fast Fo rWo rd. A mer ic a n J ou r n a l of S p eec h La n gu a g e P a t holo gy, 10 , 2 6 9 - 27 3 .  Gil l am, R. Mc Fadd e n , T. U . , & van K leec k , A . ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Improv ing t he narrat i v e abi l i t i e s i f c hildren wit h lang u ag e diso rder s : Who le lang uag e and lang u ag e sk i l l s appro ac h e s. In M. Fey, J . Windso r, & J . Reic hl e ( E ds. ) C o mmunic at io n inter v e nt i o n fo r sc ho o l ag e c hildren ( pp. 1 4 5 - 1 8 2 ) . Balt imo re: Bro o kes.  Gil l am, R. B. , & U k rain et z , T. A . ( 2 0 0 6 ) . L ang u ag e inter v e nt io n t ho ug h l i terat ur e - b a s ed uni t s. In U k rainet z , T. A . ( E d. ) , Con tex t u a l i ze d La n gu a ge I n ter ve n t i o n : S c a f fol d in g P r e K 1 2 Liter a c y A c hieveme n t . ( pp. 5 9 - 9 4 ) . E au C laire, WI: T hink i ng P ubl i c at i o n s  Har vey, S . & Go udv is, A . ( 2 0 07 ) . S t r a tegies t ha t w or k: Tea c hin g c omp r e h e n s i o n for u n d er s t a n d in g a n d en ga gem en t 2 n d ed it ion . Mrk ha m, Ont ario : Pembro o k e P ubl i she r s .  H o g g an, K . C . , & S t ro ng , C . J . ( 1 9 9 4 ) . T he mag ic o f o nc e upo n a t i me: N arrat i v e 86 teac hin g st rateg i e s. La n gu a ge S p eec h a n d Hea r in g S er v ic es in t he S c hools , 2 5 , 76 - 8 9 . Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

REFERENCES  Kovac h, T. ( 2 0 0 9 ) . A ug ment at i v e and A ltern at i v e C o mmunic at i o n P ro fi l e: A C o nt inuum o f L earn i ng . E ast Mo line, IL : L i ng ui sy st e m s.  Marza no , R. J . , & P ic keri ng , D . J . ( 2 0 0 5 ) . Bu ild in g a c a d emic voc a b u la r y: Tea c her s ma n u a l. A lex and ri a , VA : A sso c iat io n fo r S uper v is io n and C urric ul um .  Master so n, J . J . , & A pel, K . ( 2 0 07 ) . S pelling and wo rd- lev e l readi ng . In A . Kamhi , J . J .  Master so n, & K . A pel, ( E ds. ) , Clin ic a l D ec is io n Ma kin g in D evelop m en t a l La n gu a ge D is or d er s ( pp. 24 9 - 2 6 6 ) . Balt imo re , MD : Bro o kes.  Paul , Rhea. ( 2 0 07 ) . La n gu a g e d is or d er s fr om in fa n c y t hr ou gh a d ole s c e n c e : A s s e s s me n t a n d in te r ve n t i o n . ( 3 rd ed. ) . S t L o uis: Mo sby.  R eadanc e, J . , Moore, D . , & R i c k el m an, R . (2000). P rereadi ng ac t i v i t i es f or c ont ent area readi ng and l earni ng. N ewark , D el awa re : Int ern at i on al R eadi ng A s s oc i at i on.  Ro dg er s. A . & Ro dg er s, E . M. ( 2 0 0 4 ) . S c a f fold i n g liter a c y in s t r u c t io n : S t r a tegi es for K - 4 c la s s r oo ms . Po r t smo ut h, N H: Hei ne m a n n.  S i ng er, B . D . , & Bashi r, A . S . ( 2 0 0 4 ) . E mP OWE R: A st rateg y fo r teac hi n g st udent s wi t h l ang uag e learni ng disabilit i e s how to write ex po sito r y tex t . In S i l l i ma n, E . R. & W i l k i nso n, L . C . ( E ds. ) , La n gu a ge a n d Liter a c y Lea r n in g in S c hools . ( pp. 2 3 9 - 27 2 ) . N ew Yo rk : Guilfo rd P ress.  Strong, C. J., & Hogan North, K.C. (1996). The magic of stories: Literature-based language intervention. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.  Torgesen, J.K. et al. (2001). Intensive remediation instruct for children with severe RD. Journal Learning Disabilities, 34, 33-58.


87

REFERENCES  

 

Ukrainetz, T.A. (2006). Contextualized Language Intervention: Scaffolding PreK-12 Literacy Achievement. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications. Ukrainetz, T.A. (2006). Teaching narrative structure: coherence, cohesion, and captivation. In Ukrainetz, T.A. (Ed.), Contextualized Language Intervention: Scaffolding PreK-12 Literacy Achievement. (pp.195-246). Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications. Ukrainetz, T.A. & Fresquez, E. F. (2003). What isn’t language: A qualitative study of the role of the speech lanaguage pathologist. Language Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 34, 284-298. Ukrainetz, T.A. & Ross, C. (2006). Text comprehension: Facilitating active and strategic engagement. In Ukrainetz, T.A. (Ed.), Contextualized Language Intervention: Scaffolding PreK-12 Literacy Achievement. (pp.503-64). Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.

 Ukrainetz, T.A. (1998). Beyond Vygotsky: What Soviet activity theory offers naturalistic language intervention. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 22, 122-133.  Ukrainetz, T.A. (2006). Contextualized Language Intervention: Scaffolding PreK–12 Literacy Achievement. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. •

Wallach, G. and Miller, L. (1988). Language intervention and academic success. Boston, MA: College-Hill Publications. Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

88

REFERENCES  West by, C . ( 2 0 0 5 ) . A ssess i ng and remedi a t i ng tex t c o mpreh e n si o n pro bl ems . In H . W. C at t s & A . G. Kamhi ( E ds. ) , La n gu a ge a n d r ea d in g d is a b il it i es ( pp. 1 57 - 2 31 ) . B o sto n, A l l y n & Bac o n.  West by, C . ( 1 9 9 8 ) . C o mmunic at iv e refine m e nt in sc ho o l- ag e and ado l esc e nc e. In W. H ayes & B S huma n ( E ds. ) . Commu n ic a t i on d evelop me n t : Fou n d a t i on s , p r oc e s s e s , a n d c lin ic a l imp lic a t i on s ( pp. 31 1 - 3 6 0 ) . Balt imo r e, MD : Williams & Wi l k i ns.  West by C . ( 1 9 91 ) . L earni n g to t alk - t alk i ng to learn: Oral – literat e l ang ua g e di f fer e nc e s. In C . S . S i mo n ( E d. ) . Commu n ic a t i on s kills a n d c la s s r oo m s u c c es s : A s s e s s me n t a n d t h e r a py met hod o l o g ies for la n gu a g e- a n d lea r n i n g d is a b led s t u d en t s ( Tabl e 1 3 - 1 , p. 3 37 ) . E au C laire, WI: T hink in g P ublic at io n s.  W hi t mi re, K . ( 2 0 0 2 ) . T he evo lut io n o f sc ho o l- b as e d speec h- l a n g u a g e ser v i c e s. Commu n ic a t i o n D is or d er s Qu a r ter ly, 2 3 , 6 8 - 76 .  Wo lter, J . A . ( 2 0 0 9 ) . A sy stemat i c resear c h rev i ew o f wo rd st udy t reat me nt prac t i c e s fo r t he speec h- l a n g u a g e pat ho lo g i st . E v id en c e- Ba s ed P r a c t ic e Br ief s , 3 , 4 3 - 5 8 .  Wo lter, J . A . ( 2 0 07 ) . Mo rpho lo g ic a l awar e n e s s inter v e nt io n: C o nsi der at i o ns fo r ev i denc e- b as e d prac t ic e. P er s p ec t ives on La n gu a g e Lea r n in g a n d E d u c a t ion , 14 ( 1 ) , 6 8.  Wo lter, J . A . ( 2 0 0 5 ) . S umma r y o f spec ial intere st div isio n 1 st udent resear c h g rant : A mul t i pl e l i ng uist ic appro ac h to literac y remedi a t io n. P er s p ec t ives on La n gu a ge Lea r n in g a n d E d u c a t io n , 1 2 ( 3 ) , 2 2 - 2 5 . Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)

89