Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Workshop Handout
What’s the Difference?Dynamic Assessment
ScaffoldingProgress Monitoring
Response to Intervention
Page 2 of 52
The Metalinguistic Bridge: Paying the Toll for Classroom Success
What is “Metalinguistics”?Metalinguistic Awareness is demonstrated when a student exhibits the ability to talk about, analyze, and think about language independent of the concrete meaning of each word.An Illustration: think of the many meanings of the word “BRIDGE.” Internal Image – local bridge (concrete/based on experience) Extensions of contexts – Golden Gate Bridge (based on learning) Extension by analogy – “London Bridge is falling down” (game) Abstract/Figurative – “The bridge between the U.S. and Russia is tenuous.” Or, “Can
you ever bridge the generation gap?”
A Research PerspectiveMetalinguistic skills comprise: Epilinguistic capacity – monitoring of the actual speech production (Tunmer, Bowey,
Pratt & Herriman, 1984). Metalinguistic awareness – ability to see words as decontextualized objects and
manipulate and analyze them apart from content and production (Gombert, 1992; Shulman & Capone, 2010).
Metalinguistics and Literacy Reading comprehension and metalinguistic skills are strongly linked (Achugar,
Schleppegrell & Oteiza, 2007). Teaching multiple meanings (homonyms) and ambiguity detection skills to 3rd graders
improves reading comprehension (Zipke, Ehri and Cairns, 2009). Metalinguistic facility is essential in the writing process for initial production
(composition) and revision (editing), as writers choose words, analyze communicative intent, and assess syntax for both functions (Myhill & Jones, 2007; Myhill, 2012).
Explicit teaching about language and using language as a tool is important for literacy development (Achugar, Schleppegreil & Oteiza, 2007; Enright, 2013; Fang & Schleppegreil, 2010).
Metalinguistics and Academics Some metalinguistic skills that will have an impact on academic performance and
social interaction are:o The ability to make and understand inferences and make predictionso Understanding and using multiple meaning wordso Understanding and using abstract or figurative languageo Understanding humor or sarcasmo Formulating spoken or written sentences that meet cultural expectations for
conveying messages or expressing emotions or opinionso The ability to adapt the content and structure of messages to match context or
cultural expectations (e.g., politeness, indirect directives)o Resolving incongruities between linguistic content and nonverbal expressions of
meanings or intentions
Page 3 of 52
Metalinguistics and Language Disorders Students with language disorders who have received language intervention to
establish the fundamentals of semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic knowledge in the early grades may not have acquired adequate metalinguistic awareness, including semantic (e.g., multiple meanings and word uses) and syntactic flexibility (e.g., paraphrasing, indirect uses) for oral or written communication and perform in the average or low-average range on CELF-5.
Those students may not have crossed the bridge to metalinguistic awareness and/or acquired metacognitive abilities that are separate from linguistic skills – “Paid the Toll.”
Metalinguistic Difficulties1. Planning for production of statements, questions, paragraphs, stories in
speaking/writing2. Making predictions and forming hypotheses3. Problem-solving for strategic language use4. Self-monitoring to identify errors and problems5. Correcting inefficient approaches and behaviors6. Recognizing syllable, word, phrase, clause, and sentence boundaries in speech/print7. Monitoring, self-correcting, editing speech and writing8. Playing with language (riddles, jokes, rhymes)9. Analyzing and talking about language
Metalinguistic Needs1. Processing time to plan responses and/or pre-organization of expected responses2. Highlighting and explicating schemes/scripts to foster planning, predicting, and
hypothesizing3. Strategy training to foster problem-solving & meta language use4. Practice in self-monitoring and evaluating5. Identifying sources of breakdowns & correcting inefficiencies6. Learning of phonemic contrasts and syllable boundaries and conventions of print7. Highlighting syllables, words, phrases, clauses, and sentences8. Practice in playing with various language components (words, phrases, clauses)9. Practice in analyzing – discussing oral and written language (meaning features,
patterns, rules, applications)
Strategies for Metalinguistic Performance
Developing Semantic Flexibility Expand the meanings of words on the “Word Wall” by forming relationships using
classification, compare, and contrast strategieso “Today’s words are discussion, negotiation, treaty, and peace.”o “Which of these words go together?” (e.g., discussion and negotiation or treaty
and peace)o “How to the meanings of the two words relate to each other?”o “How do the words discussion and negotiation relate to the meanings of the words
treaty and peace?”o “What other words can you think of with meaning that relate to discussion and
negotiation?”
Page 4 of 52
o “What other words can you think of that relate to treaty and to peace?”o “Can you think of situations in which the words can be or have been used?”
Page 5 of 52
Understanding Multiple Meaning Words Elicit spontaneous interpretations of the given word with multiple meanings (e.g.,
glass). Present a different context for the given word (e.g., picture or sentence). “What does
the word _____ mean when it is used in this situation?” (e.g., show a window or say, “’The ball broke the window.’ What does the word glass refer to here?”)
Brainstorm other contexts in which the given multiple word can be used (e.g., eyeglasses, containers of various kinds)
Broaden the use of the given word by using it in sentences that relate to various contexts and interpretations (e.g., “Where else can we use the word glass?”)
Understanding Figurative Language Identify the word or phrase in a sentence that is the key to the figurative
interpretation: “Their shared hobby bridged the generation gap between grandfather and grandson.”
Elicit a spontaneous interpretation of the word bridge and what it means in different concrete contexts (e.g. rivers, railroads, etc.): “Where do you find a bridge in everyday life? What does the bridge do in that situation?”
Brainstorm possible figurative interpretations for “to bridge a gap” (e.g., form connections, understanding between one and the other, etc.)
Broaden the use of the given word to related contexts and figurative interpretations
Figurative Language Strategies Directional terms – forms of UP have positive connotations, and DOWN has negative
connotations; forms of AHEAD are positive, while BEHIND is negative. Examples: “Things are looking up,” “I feel down today,” “He is on the top of the world,” and “I am glad to have that behind me.”
Common concepts –o Time is viewed as money – “let’s save time,” “…running out of time.”o Containers hold conditions, etc. – “My cup runneth over,” “He sees the glass as
half empty; I see it as half full.”o Body parts can serve as concepts. “Hands” are viewed as containers – “She came
empty-handed.”
Making Inferences and Predictions Identify essentials of the context: “Laura was on her way to work when she saw a sign
for a donut shop.” Determine conditions of the actor or participants: “She had forgotten breakfast in her
haste to get on the way.” Brainstorm available options for actions (e.g., stopping for coffee, donuts, muffins, or
continuing on to work) Consider priorities among options and outcomes (e.g. stop and be late or get food and
work better) Select an option based on probability or desirable outcome: “It was worth resisting
the temptation.”
Page 6 of 52
Understanding Humor and Sarcasm Identify contrasts between the context and the message (e.g., situation, word
meaning, tone of voice, facial expression, or body language) Determine which aspects are neutral, positive, or negative (e.g., verbal message,
tone of voice, facial expression, or body language) Given the context or interaction, which channel of communication has the greatest
impact (e.g., verbal message, tone of voice, facial expression, or body language) Consider the interpretation as being factual, humoristic, or sarcastic (e.g., humor is
essentially positive; sarcasm is essentially negative) Select an option based on explicit discussion of options or on life experiences
Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2016). The metalinguistic bridge: Paying the toll for classroom success [Webinar]. Retrieved from http://www.speechandlanguage.com/events/the-metalinguistic-bridge-paying-the-toll-for-classroom-success
Page 7 of 52
Stages of Children’s Metalinguistic Ability
Stage One (Ages 1½ to 2 years)
Distinguishes print from nonprint Knows how to interact with books: right side up, page turning from left to right Recognizes some printed symbols, e.g. TV character’s name, brand names, signs
Stage Two (Ages 2 to 5½ or 6 years)
Ascertains word boundaries in spoken sentences Ascertains word boundaries in printed sequences Engages in word substitution play Plays with the sounds of language Begins to talk about language parts, about talking (speech acts) Corrects own speech/language to help the listener understand the message
(spontaneously or in response to listener request) Self-monitors own speech and makes changes to more closely approximate the adult
model; phonological first; lexical and semantic speech style last Believes that a word is an integral part of the object to which it refers (word realism) Able to separate words into syllables Inability to consider that one word could have two different meanings
Stage Three (Ages 6 to 10 years)
Begins to take listener perspective and use language form to match Understands verbal humor involving linguistic ambiguity, e.g. riddles Able to resolve ambiguity: lexical first, as in homophones (e.g. by/buy, to/two); deep
structures next, as in ambiguous phrases (“Will you join me in a bowl of soup?”); phonological or morphemic next (Q: “What do you have if you put three ducks in a box?” A: “A box of quackers.”)
Able to understand that words can have two meanings, one literal and the other nonconventional or idiomatic, e.g. adjectives used to describe personality characteristics such as hard, sweet, bitter
Able to resequence language elements, as in pig Latin Able to segment syllables into phonemes Finds it difficult to appreciate figurative forms other than idioms
Stage Four (Ages 10+ years)
Able to extend language meaning into hypothetical realms, e.g. to understand figurative language such as metaphors, similes, parodies, analogies, etc.
Able to manipulate various speech styles to fit a variety of contexts and listeners
Wallach, G. P. and Miller, L. (1988). Language intervention and academic success. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Page 8 of 52
Examples of Early Metalinguistic Behaviors
Word Consciousness
Changing names and rituals Mary had a little can.
Substituting nonsense words for known words
Brush those hams before you meep.
Inventing new words by combining or overextending known words
Ballkite means Frisbee
Foreign language awareness I’m doing Spanish. That’s called a mindo, dindo, findo.
Questions or comments about word usage
Do we have two names for that fruit, orange and tangerine?
Words Are Separate Segments of Language
Word substitution play That drives me bananas. That drives me nuts. That drives me gas stations.
Segmenting words and asking for meaning
What’s are mean?
Figuring out word boundaries Is it an A-dult or a-Nuh-dult?
Phonological Awareness
Phonological corrections I want a cwooton, a cweeton, I want one of those, mama.
Nonsense sound play Cow go moo, mommy go mamoo, daddy go dadoo.
Adding endings I go get my bookie.
Spontaneous rhyming Eggs are beggs.
Rhyming with awareness Annie, mannie. That’s the same kind.
Segmenting phonemes Jonathon starts with a /dz/ sound.
Page 9 of 52
Wallach, G. P. and Miller, L. (1988). Language intervention and academic success. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Page 10 of 52
10 Criteria from MLE Scale
Jensen & Feuerstein (1987) created the Mediated Learning Experience (MLE) Scale, devised to reflect these 10 criteria of adult-child interaction hypothesized to comprise an MLE and therefore to enhance children's cognitive development.
1. intentionality and reciprocity: when the mediator deliberately guides the interaction in a chosen direction and the learner responds;
2. meaning: the significance and purpose of an activity;
3. transcendence: linking a specific activity with others to promote the acquisition of principles or concepts;
4. competence: a positive belief in one's ability, the motivation to try, and the determination to persevere;
5. self-regulation and control of behavior: monitoring a task in order to adjust one's behavior appropriately;
6. sharing behavior: the interdependence of the mediator and the learner, referring to the mutual need for cooperation at a cognitive and affective level;
7. individuation: the sense of uniqueness and difference from others which fosters personal autonomy;
8. goal planning: the setting, planning, and achieving of goals through an explicit process;
9. challenge: a feeling of determination and enthusiasm to cope with novel and complex tasks; and
10. self-change: the responsibility for being aware of changes within oneself, necessary to becoming an independent and autonomous learner.
Page 11 of 52
Jensen, M. R., & Feuerstein, R. (1987). The learning potential assessment device: From philosophy to practice. Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential, 379-402.
Page 12 of 52
Peña, E. D., Gillam, R. B., & Bedore, L. M. (2014). Dynamic assessment of narrative ability in English accurately identifies language impairment in English language learners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(6), 2208-2220.
Study: Researchers were interested in differentiating CLDs with and without English language impairment.• Compared three groups of kindergarten children with and without language
impairment who were Spanish-English speakers engaged in learning English as a second language.
• A three-session process: 1) pretest and instruction, 2) instruction, & 3) post-test.• Goal: To increase length and complexity of narratives.
Test: Children were given the wordless picture books, Two Friends (pretest) and Bird and His Ring (posttest) and asked to tell a story in English to the examiner.
Instruction/MLE: Two 30-minute sessions. Targeted complete, complex episodes/narratives with modeling and practice. Session 1 targeted the child ’s pre-test story. Session 2 created a new story. Used key MLE elements in a scripted approach.
MLO Analysis: Rated responsivity (modifiability) on a 1-5 scale. Low score better.• Affect: anxiety, motivation, persistence• Behavior: response to feedback, attention, compliance• Arousal: task orientation, metacognition, nonverbal self-reward• Elaboration: problem-solving, flexibility, verbal self-mediation
Performance Analysis: Used several narrative measurements and assigned qualitative scores.
Narrative measurements (complexity and productivity) assessed…• Grammaticality (percent ungrammatical utterances)• Complexity (number of main verbs)• Total Number of Words• Number of Different Words• Mean Length of Utterance in words
Qualitative ratings/scores (on a 5- or 7-point scale) were assigned to the following components, with total story scores ranging from 10-52. High scores better. • Story components : setting, character information, temporal order of events, causal
relationships (5-point rating scale)• Story ideas and language : complexity of ideas, knowledge of dialogue, complexity
of vocabulary, grammatical complexity and creativity (5-point rating scale)• Episode structure : initiating event, internal response, attempt, reaction, resolution
(7-point rating scale)
Results: • DA total story scores: All three groups scored higher on the posttest.• No pretest to posttest changes in the productivity and complexity measures.• MLO analyses were highly robust for group differentiation.• A combination of modifiability scores, DA story scores, and grammaticality measures
were best for classification.
Page 13 of 52
Page 14 of 52
Kapantzoglou, M., Restrepo, M. A., & Thompson, M. S. (2012). Dynamic assessment of word learning skills: Identifying language impairment in bilingual children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43(1), 81-96.
Study: Researchers created a dynamic assessment of word learning to accurately classify bilingual children with primary language impairment (PLI) vs. typically developing children. (Specifically, this study evaluated whether a set of word production and word identification scores after nine, 18, or 27 exposures, combined with modifiability scores based on the Learning Strategies Checklist (LSC) and Modifiability Scale (MS), could accurately classify preschool bilinguals with and without PLI.)• Participants included two groups of 4-5 year old Spanish and English speaking
children.• Instruction consisted of one 30-40 minute dynamic assessment session for word
learning.
Entire Procedure: Three 30-40 minutes sessions. Preliminary testing completed during first two sessions. In the third session, children participated in the three-phase DA task.
Preliminary Identification Measures: • Parent report• Teacher report• Vocabulary tests (ROWPVT-SBE, EOWPVT-SBE) in both languages• Language samples and Language proficiency• Story retelling with wordless books in both languages• Coded with SALT, segmented in T-units, calculated grammatical errors per T-unit
Stimuli: • Three unfamiliar target items (an animal, seeds, level) and three familiar items
(flower, pizza, sunglasses)• Unfamiliar items were given non-word names (fote, depa, kina). [CVCV format that
followed Spanish phonological rules; Low neighborhood density, high phonotactic probability]
• Dynamic assessment was administered in Spanish
Tests: Children were asked to name all the items to confirm that they could name all of the familiar items and none of the unfamiliar items (pretest). A script was used in three phases during the DA session (probes). At the end of each phase, the examiner assessed the child’s ability to name (word production) and identify (word identification) the objects (posttest).
Instruction/MLE: • Consistent across participants. • Established rapport. • Used puppets with a script. • Employed MLE principles and
communicated purpose. • Children developed a plan for
remembering the words. • Examiners gave children reminders to
remember the names.
• Taught two familiar words, two unfamiliar, then alternated.
• Each word presented 9 times in the script.
• Learning supports.o Examiner gave the category for
each item.o Talked about function/use.o Used a gesture.
Page 15 of 52
o Provided a description.o Allowed physical manipulation.
o Asked child to imitate 3 times.
Page 16 of 52
MLO Analysis: At the end of phase 3…• Used the LSC to assess child’s strategies.
o 13 items scored on a 3-point scale (0,1,2); range of 0-26 pointso attention/discrimination, planning, self-regulation/awareness, application,
motivation• Used the MS to assess responsivity.
o judgment of child’s response to intervention, examiner effort, responsivity, and transfer;
o three items on a 4-point Likert scale; one item with a 3-point scale• Calculated the modifiability index.
Results: • Children with TLD learned words at a faster rate than children with PLI.• Dynamic assessment was promising when differentiating between children with TLD
and PLI.• Classification was best when combining Phase 1 scores and LSC scores.
Donaldson, A. L., & Olswang, L. B. (2007). Investigating requests for information in children with autism spectrum disorders: Static versus dynamic assessment. Advances in Speech Language Pathology, 9(4), 297-311.
Study: Investigating the use of static vs dynamic assessment for requests for information in children with autism spectrum disorders.• Participants included 14 more able children with ASD and 12 typically developing
peers (TPD) ages 5-0 – 6-11, enrolled in an integrated kindergarten or first grade classroom.
Preliminary Identification Measures: • Nominated by classroom teachers.• Measured use of ‘requests for information’ during social interactions with peers and
the examiner (baseline).• Initial static assessment observation session, e.g., “How are you? Will you push me?
Can I have the red crayon?”.
Instruction/MLE: Three dynamic assessment sessions completed in the school environment.• Manipulation of contextual variables, then linguistic variables, then physical setting
variables.• Use of highly preferred objects and activities.• Use of a linguistic prompting hierarchy.
o Spontaneous (natural interaction)o Adult or peer model (What are you building?)o Adult indirect prompt (You could ask Billy what he’s building?)o Adult direct prompt (Say… What are you building, Billy?)
Results: • During static assessment, the ASD group produced fewer ‘requests for information’
than the TDP group.
Page 17 of 52
o High ASD and TDP demonstrated similar performance across all assessment sessions.
o Low ASD produced significantly fewer ‘requests for information’ than TDP.• During the first dynamic assessment, low ASD and TDP performed similarly.
Page 18 of 52
My Sandwich Plan (PIP)
Choose your Sandwich:
Determine what skill/task you want to
assess and teach, with whom & why.
Target skill:
Target task:
Type of student:
Purpose/Reason:
Choose your Bread:
Select or design tools for pre- and post-
testing.
Static test:
Analysis of test results:
Adaptation of test:
Your own design:
Choose your Fillings:
Select or design interventions (MLE) for
different skills or tasks.
Target:
Structure:
Goals:
Instruction/MLE:
Stimuli/Activities:
Success criteria:
Data collection:
Page 19 of 52
MLO (Analysis):
Select or design a rating scale for
responsiveness and/or modifiability.
Basic cognitive functions:
Metacognitive skills:
Executive functions:
Notes or Comments
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________
Page 20 of 52
Larsen, J. A., & Nippold, M. A. (2007). Morphological analysis in school-age children: Dynamic assessment of a word learning strategy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38(3), 201-212.
Ram, G., Marinellie, S. A., Benigno, J., & McCarthy, J. (2013). Morphological analysis in context versus isolation: Use of a dynamic assessment task with school-age children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44(1), 32-47.
Studies of derivational morphemes: • Suffixes and affixes added to lexical morphemes (root words) to produce new words.• Employ morphological analysis to determine meanings of unfamiliar words from
knowledge of root words and affixes.
Purpose: • To investigate how well school-age children could use morphological analysis to
explain word meanings. To examine individual differences in this domain in relation to children’s broader literacy skills (L&N, 2007).
• To investigate the ability of typically developing children in grades 3 and 5 to use morphological analysis to determine the meanings of derived words with and without context clues. To examine the relation between children’s reading practices and their performance in determining the meanings of derived words (RMB&M, 2013).
• More specifically…o How well do children use morphological analysis?o How much and what kind of assistance does a child need to be successful?o How does this ability relate to literacy skills?o How does performance in isolation compare to within context?
Methods: • The ability of 50 typically developing sixth-grade children to explain the meanings of
15 low-frequency morphologically complex words was measured using a dynamic assessment procedure (DATMA). Children were individually interviewed and were asked to define each word. As needed, varying degrees of adult scaffolding were provided. Children were also assessed for their word knowledge and reading comprehension (L&N, 2007).
• Children provided definitions for 20 low-frequency derived words that were presented to them in isolation and in context. Responses were scored on a scale of 0 to 5 based on the children’s performance on the Dynamic Assessment of Morphological Analysis—Modified (DATMA–M), which was created by the authors (RMB&M, 2013).
Task: • Children were asked to explain the meanings of morphologically complex words.• Target words consisted of low-frequency derivatives of high-frequency root words [15
words, (L&N, 2007); 20 words (RMB&M, 2013)], presented randomly. • Task design consisted of four stages: (a) selecting the target words, (b) generating
the assessment prompts, (c) writing an administration script, and (d) devising a scoring system.
Page 21 of 52
DATMA (Dynamic Assessment Task of Morphological Analysis): This method of questioning children about word meanings was adapted from Anglin’s (1993) research. See the flowchart below illustrating the prompting and scoring procedures.
Prompts: • A series of prompts, within a scripted procedure, was presented for each target word.• After each prompt, the examiner paused for up to 10 seconds. If the child did not
respond or answered incorrectly, the examiner proceeded to the next prompt. • Once the child correctly defined a target word, the prompting stopped and the next
word was presented. • Throughout the task, the examiner used a gentle, reassuring tone of voice so that the
child would feel supported rather than criticized for not knowing a word.
Scoring: • Scoring involved rules for coding an acceptable definition, and assignment of points
based on how far the child progressed through the prompting hierarchy before responding correctly.
• For each target word, a maximum of five points could be earned (5 × 15 = 75 possible points).
• Points were deducted as more assistance was required for the child to define the word or recognize its meaning.
DATMA Cues: A series of 6 prompts that are progressively more helpful.1. Asking the child what the derived word means.2. Asking the child how he/she knows what the word means.3. Asking if the word has smaller parts and what are they.4. Telling the child the smaller parts.5. Using the word in a sentence.6. Giving a multiple choice question with three choices.
Page 22 of 52
DATMA-M Cues: 1. a) Asking the child what the derived word means.
b) Asking the child to listen to the sentence and tell what the derived word means.2. Asking the child how he/she knows what the word means.3. Asking if the word has smaller parts and what are they.4. Telling the child the smaller parts.5. Telling the child the meaning of the word ending.6. Giving a multiple choice.
Conclusions: • Both studies showed a range of skills that differentiated children’s abilities.• Some children needed minimal assistance; others required more scaffolding.• Both studies showed a relationship between ability in morphological analysis and
other literacy skills.• More specifically…
o Large variability in the children’s performance on the DATMA-M.o Children in grade 5 achieved significantly higher scores than their grade 3
counterparts.o Overall, children performed better with contextual clues than when the word was
presented in isolation.o Correlation was found between reading frequency and DATMA-M scores.o Most participants required at least one or two prompts to provide an acceptable
definition of the target word.
Glaspey, A. M. (2012). Stimulability measures and dynamic assessment of speech adaptability. SIG 1 Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 19(1), 12-18.
Purpose: The purpose of this article is to show different procedures that have been used over time and how stimulability methodologies are variable across clinicians. A global correction approach, a phoneme-based approach, and the author’s “expanded stimulability” (dynamic assessment of speech adaptability) approach are presented. These measures are illustrated using a case sample of a preschool-age girl with severe phonological disorder. Furthermore, dynamic assessment of speech adaptability is highlighted as a newer strategy that encompasses stimulability and expands traditional practices in the diagnostic and treatment phases of intervention.
Design: A 15-point scale is used to document a child’s ability to adapt speech production when given a systematic presentation of cues and linguistic environments. Rather than using the term stimulability, it may be beneficial to think of this expanded model of testing as a measure of speech adaptability; a deeper, more systematic manner of testing that crosses multiple layers of both cues and linguistic environments. The scale can be applied to any phoneme and many phonological patterns. It was designed for children with phonological disorder to sample some core treatment strategies, a concept that corresponds with a response-to-intervention approach. Of course, more cues and linguistic environments could be assessed; however, this measure gives enough opportunities to differentiate children and to show change over time.
Glaspey Dynamic Assessment of Phonology (GDAP): See attached documents.
Page 23 of 52
Page 24 of 52
Page 25 of 52
Page 26 of 52
Graduated Prompts Approach: NAMING
CUES
ENVIRONMENTS
Spontaneous,
Independent
Response
Additional Time
& Stimulus Repetitio
n
Question
Prompts
Additional Informatio
n
Multiple
Choice
Imitation
(Most Difficult)
No Response
PRACTICE ACTIVITYSpecify a GPA based on
the “Compensatory Cueing” information
provided.
Prompt 2 is designed to check the student’s
cognitive process (or metacognition) for
providing the correct response.
(5 points) (4.5 points)
Page 27 of 52
Types of Scaffolding
Scaffold Ways to use Scaffolds in an Instructional SettingAdvance organizers
Tools used to introduce new content and tasks to help students learn about the topic: Venn diagrams to compare and contrast information; flow charts to illustrate processes; organizational charts to illustrate hierarchies; outlines that represent content; mnemonics to assist recall; statements to situate the task or content; rubrics that provide task expectations.
Cue Cards Prepared cards given to individual or groups of students to assist in their discussion about a particular topic or content area: Vocabulary words to prepare for exams; content-specific stem sentences to complete; formulae to associate with a problem; concepts to define.
Concept and mind maps
Maps that show relationships: Partially or completed maps for students to complete; students create their own maps based on their current knowledge of the task or concept.
Examples Samples, specimens, illustrations, problems: Real objects; illustrative problems used to represent something.
Explanations More detailed information to move students along on a task or in their thinking of a concept: Written instructions for a task; verbal explanation of how a process works.
Handouts Prepared handouts that contain task- and content-related information, but with less detail and room for student note taking.
Hints Suggestions and clues to move students along: ―place your foot in front of the other,‖ ―use the escape key,‖ ―find the subject of the verb,‖ ―add the water first and then the acid.‖
Prompts A physical or verbal cue to remind—to aid in recall of prior or assumed knowledge. Physical: Body movements such as pointing, nodding the head, eye blinking, foot tapping. Verbal: Words, statements and questions such as ―Go, ―Stop, ―It’s right there, ―Tell me now, ―What toolbar menu item would you press to insert an image?, ―Tell me why the character acted that way.
Question Cards
Prepared cards with content- and task-specific questions given to individuals or groups of students to ask each other pertinent questions about a particular topic or content area.
Question Stems
Incomplete sentences which students complete: Encourages deep thinking by using higher order ―“What if” questions.
Stories Stories relate complex and abstract material to situations more familiar with students: Recite stories to inspire and motivate learners.
Visual Scaffolds
Pointing (call attention to an object); representational gestures (holding curved hands apart to illustrate roundness; diagrams such as charts and graphs; methods of highlighting visual information.
Page 28 of 52
Alibali, M (2006). Does visual scaffolding facilitate students’ mathematics learning? Evidence from early algebra. http://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/details.asp?ID=54
Page 29 of 52
Scaffolds that Assist Communication
Scaffolding strategies consist of various types of prompts, questions, information, restatements and other procedures that provide support to the student as the student is actively engaged in the process of communicating a message.
Cloze procedures, which are similar to "filling in the blanks," enable the adult and the student share the expression of the message. The adult pauses at appropriate junctures so that the student can supply needed information.
Gestures and pantomime are used to provide the student with nonlinguistic cues to prompt the ideas that need to be expressed.
Relational terms are a specific type of prompt. They indicate that more information is required and cue the student about the type of information that is needed. Relational terms can prompt a variety of informational needs including:
1. Additive (and...) 2. Temporal (and then; first; after; next; and when; while.) 3. Causal (because; so; since; so thats; in order to ... ) 4. Adversative (but; except; however; except that ... ) 5. Conditional (if; unless; if- then; in case; or ... )6. Spatial (in; next to; until he got to; which was on ... )
Preparatory sets inform the student about the concept that needs to be expressed or the communication act that needs to be performed in the context. They function to make information salient, or to point out what is new and relevant.
Constituent questioning specifies the type of information that needs to be provided, and can be used to prompt agents, actions, objects, locations, or relational information. These include Wh-questions.
Comprehension questions ask for information on different levels of comprehension. These include questions such as "What will happen?" "Why did that happen?" "Why isn't _?" "Why didn't: _?" "What should we do?". These questions can be used to inform other children, as well as to interact with the adult.
Summarization or evaluation questions ask the student to restate information about the event, and therefore provide the student with a second opportunity to communicate the message.
Binary choices offer the student alternative utterances that can be used.
Turn-taking cues indicate to the student that more information is warranted. These cues take forms such as repeating the child's utterance with an expectant pause, providing an acknowledging comment with rising intonation.
Phonemic cues (Truncated cue) such as the initial sound or syllable of the target word can be provided.
Page 30 of 52
Norris, J. A., & Hoffman, P. R. (1990). Language intervention within naturalistic environments. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 21(2), 72-84.
Page 31 of 52
Guidelines for Implementing Scaffolding Effectively The following points can be used as guidelines when implementing scaffolding.
• Select suitable tasks that match curriculum goals, course learning
objectives and students’ needs.
• Allow students to help create instructional goals, which can increase students’ motivation and their commitment to learning.
• Consider students’ backgrounds and prior knowledge to assess their progress – Material that is too easy will quickly bore students and reduce motivation. On the other hand, material that is too difficult can turn off students’ interest levels.
• Use a variety of supports (scaffolds) as students progress through a task.
• Provide encouragement and praise as well as ask questions and have students explain their progress to help them stay focused on the goal.
• Monitor student progress through feedback. In addition to adult feedback, have students summarize what they have accomplished so they are aware of their progress and what they have yet to complete.
• Create a welcoming, safe, and supportive learning environment that encourages students to take risks and try alternatives. Everyone should feel comfortable expressing their thoughts without fear of negative responses.
• Help students become less dependent on instructional supports as they work on tasks and encourage them to practice the task in different contexts.
Page 32 of 52
Adapted from:Hogan, K. E., & Pressley, M. E. (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues.
Brookline Books.
Page 33 of 52
Reflection Activity
Take a few minutes to review your notes.Be prepared to discuss your responses (time permitting).
Write down three main points that are important to you.1.
2.
3.
Write down two lingering questions that you have.
1.
2.
Write down one action that you plan to take.1.
Page 34 of 52
What Is the Difference Between Formative and Summative Assessment?
Formative assessment… refers to a wide variety of methods that teachers use to conduct in-process evaluations of student comprehension, learning needs, and academic progress during a lesson, unit, or course. The goal of formative assessment is to collect detailed information that can be used to improve instruction and student learning while it’s happening. More specifically, formative assessments:• help students identify their strengths/weaknesses and target areas that need work• help teachers recognize where students are struggling and address problems
immediatelyFormative assessments are generally low stakes, which means that they have low or no point value. Examples of formative assessments include asking students to:• draw a concept map in class to represent their understanding of a topic• submit one or two sentences identifying the main point of a lecture• turn in a research proposal for early feedbackFormative assessments help teachers identify concepts that students are struggling to understand, skills they are having difficulty acquiring, or learning standards they have not yet achieved so that adjustments can be made to lessons, instructional techniques, and academic support.What makes an assessment “formative” is not the design of a test, technique, or self-evaluation, but the way it is used; that is, to inform in-process teaching and learning modifications.The following are a few representative examples of formative assessments:• Questions that teachers pose to individual students and groups of students during the
learning process to determine what specific concepts or skills they may be having trouble with. A wide variety of intentional questioning strategies may be employed, such as phrasing questions in specific ways to elicit more useful responses.
• Specific, detailed, and constructive feedback that teachers provide on student work, such as journal entries, essays, worksheets, research papers, projects, ungraded quizzes, lab results, or works of art, design, and performance. The feedback may be used to revise or improve a work product, for example.
• “Exit slips” or “exit tickets” that quickly collect student responses to a teacher’s questions at the end of a lesson or class period. Based on what the responses indicate, the teacher can then modify the next lesson to address concepts that students have failed to comprehend or skills they may be struggling with. “Admit slips” are a similar strategy used at the beginning of a class or lesson to determine what students have retained from previous learning experiences.
• Self-assessments that ask students to think about their own learning process, to reflect on what they do well or struggle with, and to articulate what they have learned or still need to learn to meet course expectations or learning standards.
• Peer assessments that allow students to use one another as learning resources. For example, “workshopping” a piece of writing with classmates is one common form of peer assessment, particularly if students follow a rubric or guidelines provided by a teacher.
Page 35 of 52
In addition to the reasons addressed above, educators may also use formative assessment to:• Refocus students on the learning process and its intrinsic value, rather than on grades
or extrinsic rewards.• Encourage students to build on their strengths rather than fixate or dwell on their
deficits. (For a related discussion, see The Growth Mindset Coach by Annie Brock and Heather Hundley.)
• Help students become more aware of their learning needs, strengths, and interests so they can take greater responsibility over their own educational growth. For example, students may learn how to self-assess their own progress and self-regulate their behaviors.
• Give students more detailed, precise, and useful information. Because grades and test scores only provide a general impression of academic achievement, usually at the completion of an instructional period, formative feedback can help to clarify and calibrate learning expectations for both students and parents. Students gain a clearer understanding of what is expected of them, and parents have more detailed information they can use to more effectively support their child’s education.
• Raise or accelerate the educational achievement of all students, while also reducing learning gaps and achievement gaps.
Summative assessment… is used to evaluate student learning progress and achievement at the conclusion of a specific instructional period—usually at the end of a project, unit, course, semester, program, or school year. The goal of summative assessment is to evaluate student learning by comparing it against some standard or benchmark.Summative assessments are often high stakes, which means that they have a high point value. Examples of summative assessments include:• a midterm exam• a final project• a paper• a senior recitalIn other words, formative assessments are for learning, while summative assessments are of learning. Or as assessment expert Paul Black put it,
“When the cook tastes the soup, that’s formative assessment. When the customer tastes the soup, that’s summative assessment.”
It should be noted, however, that the distinction between formative and summative is often fuzzy in practice, and educators may hold divergent interpretations of and opinions on the subject.Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence (2015). What is the difference between formative and summative
assessment?. Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved from https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/assessment/basics/formative-summative.html
Formative assessment (2014, April 29). In S. Abbott (Ed.), The glossary of education reform. Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/formative-assessment/ .
Summative assessment (2013, August 29). In S. Abbott (Ed.), The glossary of education reform. Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/summative-assessment/
Page 36 of 52
Notes: Mind Mapping video
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 37 of 52
Create your own Mind Map. Use these words/phrases/abbreviations if they help.
ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGEACHIEVEMENT POTENTIALACTUAL DEVELOPMENTADVANCE ORGANIZERSALFRED BINETANTICIPATION OF ERRORSAPPLYING LEARNINGASSISTED PERFORMANCEATTENTIONBENJAMIN BLOOMBINARY CHOICESBREADCAKECBMCLINICAL INTERVIEWCLINICALLY-ORIENTED CLOZE PROCEDURESCOGNITIVE MODIFIABILITYCOGNITIVE TESTINGCOMPETENCECONSTITUENT QUESTIONINGCONTINGENCY MANAGEMENTCURRICULUM-BASED MEASUREMENTSDADATMADEPTH OF KNOWLEDGEDETAILED FEEDBACKDIALOGUEDOKDT/ADYNAMIC ASSESSMENTDYNAMIC TESTINGEASE OF LEARNINGENGAGEMENTEXAMINER EFFORTEXECUTIVE FUNCTIONSFADINGFILLINGFORMATIVEFROSTINGGDAPGRADUATED PROMPTING APPROACHHIERARCHYHIGHLIGHTING CRITICAL FEATURESHINTS OR CLUESINDEPENDENT PERFORMANCEINDIRECT LANGUAGE STIMULATION TECHNIQUESINSTRUCTIONINTEGRATING INDIVIDUAL SKILLSINTENTION+MEANS=STRATEGYINTENTIONAL QUESTIONINGINTERACTIONINTERNALIZES THE PROCESSINTERPERSONAL INTERACTIONINTERSUBJECTIVITYINTERVENTIONIQ TESTS
JEROME BRUNERKNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, & STRATEGIESLAYERSLEV VYGOTSKYLEVELS OF THINKINGLINGUISTIC ENVIRONMENTLISTENER EFFORTMAKING MEANINGMEASURE OF LEARNING POTENTIALMEDIATED LEARNING EXPERIENCEMEDIATIONMEMORYMETALINGUISTICSMIND MAPSMLEMLOMODELINGMONITORING PROGRESSMOTIVATIONMULTISENSORY PROMPTSNATURALISTICNORMAN WEBBORGANIZING INFORMATIONPEER TEACHINGPHONEMIC CUESPIPPOTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTPREPARATORY SETPRETEST-INTERVENE-POSTTESTPROCEDURAL RELIABILITYPROCESS-ORIENTEDPRODUCT-ORIENTEDPROGRESS MONITORINGQUESTION STEMSRECRUITMENTRELATIONAL TERMSRESEARCH-ORIENTEDRESPONSE TO INTERVENTIONRESPONSIVITYRTISANDWICHSCAFFOLDINGSCIENTIFICALLY-BASED PRACTICESELF-ASSESSMENTSHARED RESPONSIBILITYSOCIAL SUPPORT FOR LEARNINGSTATIC ASSESSMENTSUMMARIZATION QUESTIONSSUMMATIONSUMMATIVETESTING THE LIMITSTESTING THROUGH LEARNING AND TRANSFERTEST-TEACH-RETESTTRANSCENDENCETRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITYTREATMENTTREATMENT-ORIENTED
Page 38 of 52
TURN-TAKING CUESZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT
ZPD
Page 39 of 52
Page 40 of 52
RTI Arkansas
RTI is a multi-component, general education model, designed to identify students who may be at risk for learning or behavior challenges, offer
support, and monitor progress.
Tier I - CORE INSTRUCTION
• Focus: ALL students (Should meet the needs of approximately 85% of the students.)
• Interventionist: General education teacher• Setting: General education classroom• Grouping: Variable and flexible grouping formats• Curriculum: Scientific, research-based math and reading instruction aligned to
state standards and differentiated based on student need and ability• Duration: Year-long• Time: Involves a significant block of uninterrupted ELA and math instruction per
day• Assessment: Screening 3 times per year (Fall, Winter, Spring) plus a combination
of informal measures to inform instruction and identify students who may be at-risk for math and reading failure
Page 41 of 52
• Progress Monitoring: Students who are just below or a few points above the recommended benchmark score on universal screening may be progress monitored on a monthly basis
• Behavior: Attention to behavior factors (absenteeism, inattention) that impact performance
Page 42 of 52
Tier II - SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION
• Focus: Students considered at-risk as determined by universal screening, progress monitoring data and additional validated measures of student performance. (Should target 10%-15% of the student population.)
• Interventionist: Trained, skilled and knowledgeable school personnel which may include classroom teacher (e.g. paraprofessional, classroom instructor, elective instructors)
• Setting: Variable, can occur in and/or outside of general education classroom• Grouping: Small, homogenous grouping (1:3 - 1:5) based on similar instructional
needs• Curriculum: Supplemental, evidence-based intervention designed to address skill
deficits of students; compliments/supplements core instruction• Duration: Varies, based on rate of progress and performance of students; 12-18
weeks minimum or time period consistent with intervention guidance• Time: 20- 30 minutes, 3 to 4 times per week or consistent with intervention
research. (AIR: Provide Research Based Support) Note: provided in addition to core instruction at Tier I
• Assessment: Combination of informal and formal measures to inform instruction and determine response to intervention, and use diagnostic assessments to identify specific skill deficits relative to reading and math
• Progress Monitoring: Every two weeks examine rate and level of performance for the purpose of determining student response to supplemental instruction/intervention
• Behavior: Attention to behavior factors (absenteeism, inattention) that impact performance
Tier III: INTENSIVE INTERVENTION
• Focus: Students not responding appropriately to Tier I core instruction and Tier II interventions
• Interventionist: Highly trained, skilled and knowledgeable school or specialized personnel
• Setting: Most often takes place outside of general education classroom• Grouping: Small, homogenous grouping (1:1 - 1:3)• Curriculum: Supplemental, customized, intensive, systematic, research-based
instruction that targets math or reading areas of greatest need; compliments/supplements core instruction
• Duration: Varies, a minimum of 10-30 weeks Research Determined by Intervention• Length of Instructional Sessions: 30-60 minutes; five times per week. Note:
provided in addition to core instruction at Tier 1. (AIR Provide research for support.)
• Assessment: Combination of informal and formal measures to inform instruction, identify specific skill deficits and determine intervention relative to mathematics and/or reading
• Progress Monitoring: Once per week to examine rate and level of performance for the purpose of determining student response to supplemental instruction/intervention
• Behavior: Attention to behavior factors (absenteeism, inattention) that impact performance
Page 43 of 52
From:RTI Arkansas [Website], Arkansas Department of Education, 2014
Page 44 of 52
A Convergence of Opinions and Ideas
After 31 years of specialists urging teachers to refer struggling students for special education assessment, we have now begun to say just the opposite. With response to intervention (RTI) models launched in many schools, we have begun to encourage teachers to keep students in their classrooms and help them provide gradually increasing levels of intervention until students are successful. As specialists, we can offer intervention for these students in general education. We will do everything we can to help these children avoid unnecessary placement in special education. What caused this unimaginable turnabout in policy and practice? Is it beneficial for struggling students or for speech language pathologists in schools?
This dramatic change has been prompted by a strong convergence of professional opinion and practice in the last 10 years. For the purposes of this article, nine opinions and practices salient to speech and language services will be reviewed.
1. Since 1997, related services must link directly to academic standards and the core curriculum. Students who are less successful learners are the responsibility of the entire school—not the responsibility of the special education team alone (NASDSE, 2005).
2. Until 2004, struggling students had only two options to receive assistance: Title I and special education.
3. More students are learning English as a second language. They need support to learn and achieve in a second language, but they should not be referred to special education to receive that support.
4. Students in speech and language programs typically receive such support for extended periods of time. The average length of time in therapy for articulation intervention is 3 years (Taps, 2006). The vast majority of students remain in language therapy for their entire elementary school experience; many continue on in secondary programs.
5. Greater numbers of children are being labeled with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Those students frequently need social language intervention and pragmatic skills, swelling caseloads (Grinker, 2007).
6. SLPs have expansive roles and responsibilities in supporting language, literacy, and reading (ASHA, 2001).
7. Special education continues to be a major cost factor. Since the federal government has never fully funded the original special education mandate from 1975, these costs place a burden on states and, ultimately, school districts. Robust and flourishing special education programs are high cost items.
8. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 drastically reconfigured the accountability of individual schools in this nation. All students were to be proficient in the core subject areas by 2014. Four subgroups were designated for targeted monitoring for this proficiency: English learners, children of poverty, culturally/linguistically diverse students, and special education students. Low performing schools typically had large numbers of students in each of these groups. These special education students were all low achievers. This achievement gap had to be measured, analyzed, monitored, and closed before 2014. Obviously, large numbers of students in a special education subgroup will depress scores and reduce the likelihood that a school will reach its adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets. Of the four groups, special education had the most subjective enrollment criteria. Aside from students with clear sensory or cognitive disabilities, most of the others presented with
Page 45 of 52
highly subjective language or learning deficits that might be more appropriately addressed in general education. Thus, special education came to be seen as the subgroup that had the most deleterious effect on the school. If large numbers of these students could learn in the general education classroom with support, and avoid special education, the entire school would benefit. Repeated in many schools, the entire district would benefit.
Page 46 of 52
9. Finally, in 2004 IDEA was re-authorized setting the stage for “early intervening services” to prevent unnecessary and costly special education. Wording in the law addressed the assessment of learning disabilities specifically, and the accompanying Code of Federal Regulations (CFR, 2006) outlined how schools could focus on early general education support services and determine if students could respond to these targeted interventions. If they responded, they did not need special education.
RTI Stipulated Within IDEAWhile RTI is hinted at in NCLB, the general education mandate, the actual wording for the practice is found in IDEA. Some of us find this a bit disconcerting. If RTI is described in IDEA, it must be a special education practice. However, it is not; it is a general education practice. One of the reasons that general education has been wary of RTI is that the concept is housed within IDEA, a federal law firmly entrenched in special education programs, plus one with which they are considerably less familiar. Nevertheless, RTI was genuinely conceived to retain more children in general education and reduce the time, paperwork, and caseloads of special educators, including SLPs.
Excerpt from: http://sig1perspectives.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=1767447Montgomery, J. K. (2008). Models of RtI for slps: Is this what we have been waiting for?. SIG 1 Perspectives
on Language Learning and Education, 15(1), 13-21.
New and Expanded Roles and Responsibilities for SLPs
SLPs working in districts that choose to implement RTI procedures are uniquely qualified to contribute in a variety of ways to assessment and intervention at many levels, from system wide program design and collaboration to work with individual students. SLPs offer expertise in the language basis of literacy and learning, experience with collaborative approaches to instruction/intervention, and an understanding of the use of student outcomes data when making instructional decisions.
Program DesignSLPs can be a valuable resource as schools design and implement a variety of RTI models. The following functions are some of the ways in which SLPs can make unique contributions:• Explain the role that language plays in curriculum, assessment, and instruction, as a
basis for appropriate program design• Explain the interconnection between spoken and written language• Identify and analyze existing literature on scientifically based literacy assessment and
intervention approaches• Assist in the selection of screening measures• Help identify systemic patterns of student need with respect to language skills• Assist in the selection of scientifically based literacy intervention• Plan for and conduct professional development on the language basis of literacy and
learning• Interpret a school's progress in meeting the intervention needs of its students
CollaborationSLPs have a long history of working collaboratively with families, teachers, administrators, and other special service providers. SLPs play critical roles in collaboration around RTI efforts, including the following:
Page 47 of 52
• Assisting general education classroom teachers with universal screening• Participating in the development and implementation of progress monitoring systems
and the analysis of student outcomes
Page 48 of 52
• Serving as members of intervention assistance teams, utilizing their expertise in language, its disorders, and treatment
• Consulting with teachers to meet the needs of students in initial RTI tiers with a specific focus on the relevant language underpinnings of learning and literacy
• Collaborating with school mental health providers (school psychologists, social workers, and counselors), reading specialists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, learning disabilities specialists, and other specialized instructional support personnel (related/pupil services personnel) in the implementation of RTI models
• Assisting administrators to make wise decisions about RTI design and implementation, considering the important language variables
• Working collaboratively with private and community-employed practitioners who may be serving an individual child
• Interpreting screening and progress assessment results to families• Helping families understand the language basis of literacy and learning as well as
specific language issues pertinent to an individual child
Serving Individual StudentsSLPs continue to work with individual students, in addition to providing support through RTI activities. These roles and responsibilities include the following:• Conducting expanded speech sound error screening for K-3 students to track students
at risk and intervene with those who are highly stimulable and may respond to intense short-term interventions during a prolonged screening process rather than being placed in special education
• Assisting in determining "cut-points" to trigger referral to special education for speech and language disabilities
• Using norm-referenced, standardized, and informal assessments to determine whether students have speech and language disabilities
• Determining duration, intensity, and type of service that students with communication disabilities may need
• Serving students who qualify for special education services under categories of communication disabilities such as speech sound errors (articulation), voice or fluency disorders, hearing loss, traumatic brain injury, and speech and language disabilities concomitant with neurophysiological conditions
• Collaborating with classroom teachers to provide services and support for students with communication disabilities
• Identifying, using, and disseminating evidence-based practices for speech and language services or RTI interventions at any tier
Meeting the ChallengeThe foundation for SLPs' involvement in RTI has been established through the profession's policies on literacy, workload, and expanded roles and responsibilities. The opportunities for SLPs working within an RTI framework are extensive. To some, these opportunities may seem overwhelming-where in the workday would there be time to add all of these activities to our current responsibilities? Certainly if the traditional roles continue, it would be difficult to expand into these new roles.
The point of RTI, however, is not to add more tasks but to reallocate time to better address prevention and early
intervention, and in the long run serve more students up front
Page 49 of 52
rather than at the point of special education evaluation and service.
Page 50 of 52
Where RTI has been faithfully implemented, this seems to be the outcome. Some districts report reductions in special education referral and placement; even where placement rates have remained stable, staff nevertheless report a change in the way they spend their time. The reallocation of effort will hopefully lead to more effective interventions, both for students who remain in general education and those who ultimately qualify for more intensive services.
Successful RTI programs rely on the leadership of a strong principal or designated leader who has budgetary power and the ability to bring all educators to the same table to share professional development, children, time, space, money, and curriculum resources. The sharing of resources is sometimes a stumbling block, yet strong leaders can overcome these barriers by keeping the focus on the children being helped. SLPs can begin the RTI process by sharing with principals the benefits of an RTI approach and the support offered through IDEA, including the incentive that 15% of a school's special education funds can be used to launch the RTI process.
To meet this challenge, SLPs will need to be:• open to change-change in how students are identified for intervention; how
interventions are selected, designed, and implemented; how student performance is measured and evaluated; how evaluations are conducted; and how decisions are made;
• open to professional development-training (as needed) in evidence-based intervention approaches, progress monitoring methods, evaluation of instructional and program outcomes, and contextually based assessment procedures, and the implications for both preservice and in-service training;
• willing to adapt a more systemic approach to serving schools, including a workload that reflects less traditional service delivery and more consultation and collaboration in general education classrooms;
• willing and able to communicate their worth to administrators and policymakers and to educate others on the unique contributions that SLPs can make consistent with the provisions of IDEA.
IDEA (2004) does not mandate significant change or prohibit traditional practices. Rather, it encourages the adoption of new approaches that promise better student outcomes. Such innovations in education offer numerous opportunities to enhance speech-language services to the benefit of all students.
Excerpt from: http://nppsd.fesdev.org/pages/uploaded_files/ASHA%20%20Article.pdfEhren, B. J., Montgomery, J., Rudebusch, J., & Whitmire, K. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention: New
roles for speech-language pathologists. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Retrieved May 17, 2016.
Start RTI at Your School
Speech-language pathologists have reported that six actions are needed to get an RTI program started (Montgomery, 2006; Staskowski & Rivera, 2005). First, prioritize time for the SLPs to learn about and implement this new course. Second, try intensive interventions with students currently on the caseload to see if
they can be dismissed earlier than anticipated. Third, get the full support of administrators for 2 years of implementation before the
RTI program is evaluated.
Page 51 of 52
Fourth, agree that at least five “student places” on SLP caseloads will be reserved for RTI students who are at risk but not identified as students with speech and language disabilities.
Fifth, write and use a well-organized set of procedures to facilitate the process. You will want a procedures manual, permission slips, teacher checklists, and homework packets. This will enable teachers, administrators, and parents to understand an RTI program for speech and language services (Montgomery, 2006).
Finally, screen and place children referred for speech and language services during the year in an RTI service model before you consider them for special education.
Convince the Student Study Team at your school that given short-term intensive interventions, these students may never need to be enrolled in speech and language therapy. While some may need the special education label to get services, many will not. School districts have reported that it takes a minimum of 2 years to set the wheels in motion (Moore-Brown et al., 2005; Taps, 2006). Allow some time for the new model to have an impact on your caseload size, student dismissal rates, and your overall availability to your school. Share the data with administrators and the entire school team.
If you have the opportunity — or you decide to create the opportunity — at your school, consider collaborating to organize an RTI model. We’ve talked for a long time about dramatically altering our service delivery in schools. The time has come. RTI has the potential to produce this meaningful change for students, schools, and speech-language pathologists.
Excerpt from: http://sig1perspectives.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=1767447Montgomery, J. K. (2008). Models of RtI for slps: Is this what we have been waiting for?. SIG 1 Perspectives
on Language Learning and Education, 15(1), 13-21.
Page 52 of 52
