10/8/2019 Exploring a Collaboration Intervention Between SLPs and - - PDF document
10/8/2019 Exploring a Collaboration Intervention Between SLPs and Third-Grade Teachers to Inform Future Partnerships Mary P. Mitchell, PhD, CCC-SLP Pacific University College of Education School of Communication Sciences and Disorders
SLPs are specialists who have expertise in the language underpinnings of written and spoken language, diagnosing language disorders, and providing evidence-based language/literacy interventions (ASHA, 2010). Examples of school-based SLPs’ roles and responsibilities in literacy include: (a) Preventing written language problems by fostering language acquisition and emergent literacy, (b) identifying children at risk for reading and writing problems, (c) assessing reading and writing, (d) providing intervention and documenting outcomes for reading and writing, (e) assuming other roles (e.g., assisting teachers, advocating for effective literacy practices), and (f) supporting the instructional program in collaboration with teachers, specialists, and other school professionals (ASHA, 2001; ASHA, 2010).
To investigate whether literacy partnerships between SLPs and teachers (using a systematic collaboration protocol) yield better vocabulary outcomes for third grade students than conditions where teachers are not systematically collaborating with SLPs. To examine indicators about progress the users made toward adopting the collaboration protocol in their practice.
(Hattie, 2009)
When SLPs and teachers implement a vocabulary instructional technique using a systematic collaboration protocol (treatment condition), is there a significant difference in third grade students’
non-examples task (RQ3) …when compared with the scores of students in classrooms where non-collaborating teachers implement a similar technique (comparison condition)?
Vocabulary and Comprehension
(Anderson & Freebody, 1981)
Tunmer, 1986 )
Vocabulary Instruction (Graves, 2016) Language Scaffolding
Halliday, 1994)
1978)
Informed both the focus on academic vocabulary as a high impact instructional target around which to collaborate and the instructional technique used. Informed the procedures used in the vocabulary instructional technique.
Collaboration
(Nelson and Slavit, 2008) The Change Process
(CBAM; Hall & Hord, 1987)
Informed the development of the collaboration protocol. Informed the methods used to gather and analyze adoption progress indicators.
(Hall & Hord, 1987, 2015)
Establish a partnership Plan time commitment and schedule Agree on ground rules Demonstrate a shared understanding
social interaction and curriculum, and instructional techniques Use curriculum/instruction trouble spots as a basis for establishing instructional targets Select impactful targets for the collaboration content focus Plan student outcome measurement procedures Implement class time activities and techniques SLP models and shares language scaffolding techniques Gather student outcome data Analyze student outcome data
(Mitchell, Ehren, & Towson, 2016)
Collaboration between teachers and language/literacy specialists, such as speech-language pathologists (SLPs), is a recommended practice to support the literacy needs of students (e.g., Nevin et al., 2009; Paul et al., 2006; Wallach & Ehren, 2004). However,
There is not an
There is very little research investigating the effects of collaboration between educators on student
Treatment fidelity is not reported.
Study Design Treatment Fidelity 2 or more collaboration treatment AND comparison classrooms 2 or more SLPs in collaborative condition Grades Language-literacy
Kaufman et
Quasi-experimental; use
(N = 32) No No No 3 Discourse level- metapragmatic awareness Ellis et al. (1995) Quasi-experimental; use
(N = 40) No No No K Word level- basic concepts Farber & Klein (1999) Quasi-experimental; use
(N = 552) No Yes Yes K-1 Word, sentence, and discourse levels-MAGIC subtest components Hadley et al. (2000) Experimental with random assignment; use
(N = 86) No Yes No K-1 Word level- Receptive and expressive vocabulary; Beginning sound awareness; Letter-sound associations Study Design Treatment Fidelity 2 or more collaboration treatment AND comparison classrooms 2 or more SLPs in collaborative condition Grades Language-literacy
Swenson (2000) Case study N = 1) No No No 2-5 Global language and narrative Throneberg et
Experimental (lack of total random assignment; use of comparison groups) (N = 77) No Yes No K-3 Word level- vocabulary Calvert et al. (2003) Case study; use of comparison groups (N = 144) No Yes No 1-2 Word- phonemic production, basic concepts, vocabulary Discourse- story retell Nelson & Van Meter (2006) Case examples (N = 2) No No No 2-4 Speaking, listening, reading, writing at discourse, sentence, and word levels Study Design Treatment Fidelity 2 or more collaboration treatment AND comparison classrooms 2 or more SLPs in collaborative condition Grades Language-literacy
Thomas & Lance (2014) Retrospective evaluation (no comparison or control group) (N = 409) No No No K-3 Basic early literacy skills (DIBELS Next) Cohen- Mimram et al. (2016) Retrospective evaluation; use of a comparison group (N = 220) No Yes Yes K Word level- expressive naming Sentence level- sentence repetition Discourse level- narrative
teaching license
national ASHA license (or at least be in clinical fellowship year)
Intervention timeline
the week directly following the last week of the intervention
School 1 Comparison School 1 Collaboration School 2 Comparison School 2 Collaboration Number of students 28 26 23* 23* (n=8 third graders) Gender distribution 17 male, 11 female 12 male, 14 female 10 male, 13 female 14 male, 9 female Age range (as of 1/1/17) 8;5-9;4 8;5-9;5 8;5-9;5 7;5-9;3 Percent non-white 75% 71% 96% 96% On individualized education plans (IEPs) 7 5 4 2 Receiving language services from SLP 4 1 1 2 Receiving EL services 3 5 6 5 DIBELS Strategic 4 4 5 6 DIBELS Intensive 13 6 6 8
* Movement during study
School 1 Comparison School 1 Collaboration School 2 Comparison School 2 Collaboration Total years teaching 4 1 11 9 Years teaching 3rd grade 1 1 1 1 Highest degree held Bachelors Masters Masters Masters Age range 40-49 30-39 30-39 30-39 Gender Female Female Female Female Race Caucasian Caucasian Caucasian Caucasian Extent of previous language scaffolding
No formal EL preparation Undergraduate background in linguistics; studied Spanish for 14 years; graduate coursework on teaching EL students No formal EL preparation Endorsement in teaching EL and spent full first year teaching EL; ongoing formal preparation over career
School 1 SLP School 2 SLP Total years as SLP 11 20 Total years as school-based elementary SLP 11 20 Highest degree held Masters Doctorate Age range 30-39 40-49 Gender Female Female Race Caucasian Caucasian Extent of previous language scaffolding or EL preparation Began QTEL* preparation after the study Began QTEL* preparation in the fall; ongoing Extent of previous collaboration with teacher partner in study Began at the beginning of the 2016-17 school year Began at the end of the 2015-16 school year and continued into the current school year
*QTEL: Quality Teaching for English Learners (WestEd, 2010)
COLLAB Guiding Steps SLP/Teacher Collaboration Innovation Configuration Map (IC Map)
Choose the process and language-focused content of the
Obtain student baseline. (6) Lay foundations for language-focused instruction and support through shared planning. (7-9,11-12) Launch the plan. (10, 13) Assess student learning and make adjustments according to students’ needs. (14, 15) Build next steps. (16)
Collaboration segment
Within the segment Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Before the segment COLLAB Steps 1-6 After the segment COLLAB Steps 15-16
COLLAB Steps 7-9 10 11-12. 13 14 Repeat weekly
Establish a partnership Plan time commitment and schedule Agree on ground rules Demonstrate a shared understanding
social interaction and curriculum, and instructional techniques Use curriculum/instruction trouble spots as a basis for establishing instructional targets Select impactful targets for the collaboration content focus Plan student outcome measurement procedures Implement class time activities and techniques SLP models and shares language scaffolding techniques Gather student outcome data Analyze student outcome data
4 (Ideal Implementation) 3 (In Process) 2 (In Process) 1 (In Process) 0 (No Implementation) SLP + Teacher implement in-class activities and techniques based on trouble spots they agreed upon in advance and in response to demonstrated student performance. In the case of whole class teaching (including demonstration lessons), both partners are involved. The SLP may take the instructional lead with the teacher facilitating student connections to background experiences and curriculum. The teacher may also take the lead in behavior management. SLP + Teacher implement in- class collaboration activities and techniques based on to trouble spots they agreed upon in response to demonstrated student performance. In the case of whole class teaching (including demonstration lessons), both partners are involved. The SLP may take the instructional lead; the teacher takes the lead in behavior management and is minimally involved in helping students make connections to their background experiences and curriculum. SLP + Teacher implement the in-class collaboration activities and techniques
based on trouble spots. In the case of whole class teaching (including demonstration lessons), both partners are
take the instructional lead with the teacher facilitating student connections to background experiences and curriculum. The teacher may also take the lead in behavior management. Partners attempt to implement activities and techniques based upon suggestions of the other. Partners may not refine instruction based on trouble spots. The SLP gives ideas to the teacher to implement without providing modeling, coaching,
OR The teacher tells the SLP what the lesson plan is for the day for the SLP to then build
classroom instruction; SLP follows along and builds upon the instruction when
students’ goals. Partners do not attempt to implement activities and techniques based upon suggestions
Partners do not refine instruction based on trouble spots. (SLP/Teacher Collaboration IC Map (Mitchell, Ehren, & Towson, 2017)
consciousness
variations
construction
exploration
encounters
accurate use
engagement
instructional protocol
(PWW)
16 encounters of each word
Do/Review
synonym
synonym
Days
Do/Review
examples and word family activities
group and SLP led small group practice with word family words
generate sentences
every student responds and receives feedback
I was listening to some music and then the music abruptly stopped. I am envious because my sister got ice cream. They remarked that Ms. TEACHER’s belly is big. [pregnant!] My mom insisted that my dad pay child support.
If you’re confident the student’s answer is incorrect or incomplete, apply any of the choices below that apply to the situation:
understanding…”)
incomplete answers.
him/her the word(s) for that, give him/her an explanation about why his/her example didn’t quite work.
If the student did not respond, options… If the student’s answer is correct, options…
SLP told a story about herself working on a 1,000 piece puzzle. “I finished! I had perseverance.” Students: gestural response that she used the word correctly. Then SLP asked about if this sentence was just right or not quite right: The p e puzzle w le was a a lot o
everance.
not.
guts to continue.
NO! Can a puzzle have action? NO! NO!
sense? Students thinking...Who had perseverance? Yo You! u!
sentence? What did she have or show? NAME had perseverance on the puzzle.
NAME had had per perseverance whe when she she did the did the puz puzzle
least 16 encounters of each word
Do/Review
synonym
and synonym
variations
sentence
Days
Do/Review
with word family words
generate sentences
every student responds and receives feedback DO Part 2: For remainder of 60 minutes, teacher implemented any review activity of her choosing.
RQs 1 1-3: S Studen udent O Outcomes: R
archer er-c
ated ed m measur asures b es based sed
previo ious voca vocabula lary rese research
RQ4: A Adopt
ss Indicat dicators: R : Resear arch-validated t
s of the C e Concer ncerns-B
ased A ed Adop
del (CBAM; H M; Hall & & Hord, 1978, 201 2015)
(IC Map)
Directions: Complete the sentences using the word box choices for each group of sentences. Choose the be best word from the list
dot to the sentence dot.
Answ Answer Choi Choice ces maneu neuvers . re remarks . fierceness ceness . di dispute utes . re regrets . 1) It took 1) It took a a few few car careful ______ ________ ____ ____ ____ ___ _ the toy the toy uns unstuck ck. 2) 2) The b brothers hers have l loud ud abou about who whose tur turn it it is to clean is to clean the d the dish shes. 3) 3) The s e students ma ts made pl de playful l abou about thei their teach teacher’s craz crazy sock socks.
1) ______ ______ My mo mom s m specula eculates t that t the h e hole le i in my my sock ca ck came f me from my cat’s cat’s teet teeth. ______ ______ Anytim ime I I ca can’t f t find my nd my pi pink s sock, ck, I I specula eculate that my t my ca cat som something to d to do wit with it. it. ______ ______ I I looked do down t the h e hall a ll at my my ca cat and s d specula eculated ed her hol hole in m in my soc sock!
Use Use and and Fide Fideli lity SLP/Teacher Collaboration IC Map LoU as determined by recordings and responses to LoU branching interview questions
Use Users VI VI Re Rene newal V I V Integration IVB Refinem emen ent IVA IVA Rout Routine III III Mechan anic ical al Nonu Nonusers II II Prep Preparatio ion I Orienta tati tion N Nonuse
Lo LoU o
the I Inno nnovation (H (Hall & & Hord, 2015 2015, p.
108)
1.Did you use the COLLAB Protocol? (If yes, ask #2; if no, LoU 0, I, II) 2.Did you make any changes in your use of the COLLAB Protocol? (If yes, user oriented LoU III (Mechanical); if nothing unusual, LoU IVA (Routine); if impact-oriented, LoU IVB, V, VI) 3.Did you coordinate your use of the innovation with other users, including another not in your original group of users? (If yes, LoU V; if no, LoU IVB, V) 4.Did you explore making major modifications or replacing the innovation? (If yes, LoU VI; if no, LoU IVB or V)
questionnaire)
intensities; plot relative intensities for visual analysis)
Example of a question about Task concerns
(Hall &
& Hord, 2015 2015)
I am conce I am concerned abou about my my inability ility to m to manage nage all all that that the COLL the COLLAB Protoc
requires. quires. 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 7 Irrelevant Not true
me now Somewhat true of Me now Very true
me now
Treat
Analyses
Indicators
Inter-rater Reliability
All 13 introducti tion ses sessions and and 7 7 rev review sess sessions com complete ted in in both c classr ssroom
s
T Intro troducti tion Da Days ys in in both C th Condi nditions ns
36 minutes
T-T+SLP T+SLP R Review D ew Days A Aver erage S age Session L ion Leng ngth W th Weeks 1 eks 1-6
extra session time reflected in transitions)
literacy block was 50 minutes)
T-GE16 GE16 R Revi view D ew Days A ys Aver erag age S e Sessi ssion
ngth W Weeks 1 s 1-6
and logs reported by teachers)
All students incl included in in ana analysis is (atte (attended at at leas least half half of
intro sess sessions, half half of
sessions, and and had had ex exposure t to half half of
tau taught w words)
Collaborat aboration C ion Cond ndit ition M Missing D ing Data
Comparison C mparison Cond ndit ition M Missing D ing Data
1-2 pretests; 4 missing for task 3 pretest
(ITT (ITT)
Two-Factor Spli r Split Plot A t Plot Analys ysis of
riance (A (ANO NOVA VA)
sphericity, homogeneity of variance
comparison)
group (condition) factors
G*Power calculator for repeated measures) 2.
Effect Size Sizes with with Each Each Con Conditio ion
difference scores
(Loma max & x & Ha Hahs-Vaughn, hn, 2012) 2012)
With Within-group fac factor: There wa was a statistically significant difference in SYN scores from pretest to posttest within the entire matched group.
100%, Cohen’s f = 1.36 (large) Between een-gro roup f factor: : There wa was not s not a statistically significant difference in SYN scores between groups.
Cohen’s f = .13 (small) M SE M SE
95% Co 95% Conf nfid idence I Interval Lower
SYN T SYN Time (p (pre re) 5.95 .6 5.22 6.67 SYN T SYN Time (p (post) 12.13 .5 11.02 13.24 Gr Group: Co Colla llaborat ration 9.44 .5 8.38 10.51 Gr Group: Co Compari mparison 8.63 .5 7.57 9.69
Esti Estimate mated Ma Margi rginal Means al Means (N = 68)
(Hattie, 2009)
Co Colla llaborat ration
Compari mparison Pre Pretest M: M: 6.1 6.18 SD: 3.22 M : M : 5.7 5.71 SD: 2.75 Post Posttest M: M: 12. 12.71 SD: 5.14 M: M: 11. 11.55 SD: 3.93 Effec Effect size size withi within ea each ch grou group d = 1.4 = 1.4 (l (large) d d = 1.2 = 1.27
With Within-group fac factor: There wa was a statistically significant difference on WIC scores from pretest to posttest within the entire matched group.
100%, Cohen’s f = .91 (large) Between een-gro roup f factor: : There wa was a statistically significant difference in WIC scores between groups.
53%, Cohen’s f = .26 (medium) M SE M SE 95% 95% Conf nfidence Int Interval Lowe wer WIC WIC T Time (p (pre re) 5.1 .34 4.51 5.88 WIC WIC T Time (p (post) 9.1 .58 7.94 10.26 Gr Group: Co Colla llaborat ration 7.9 .56 6.85 9.07 Gr Group: Co Compari mparison 6.3 .56 5.20 7.46
Esti Estimate mated Ma Margi rginal Means al Means (N = 67)
(Hattie, 2009)
Co Colla llaborat ration
Co Compari mparison Pre Pretest M = M = 5.4 5.40 SD = 3.13 M = M = 4.9 4.99 SD= 2.44 Post Posttest M = M = 10. 10.53 SD = 5.02 M = M = 7.6 7.67 SD = 4.45 Effec Effect size size withi within ea each ch grou group d d = 1.3 = 1.34 d = .56 = .56
With Within-group fac factor: There wa was s a statistically significant difference on NON-EX scores from pretest to posttest within the entire matched group.
100%, Cohen’s f = .75 (large) Between een-gro roup f factor: : There wa was not s not a statistically significant difference in NON-EX scores between groups.
26%, Cohen’s f = .17 (small) M SE M SE 95% 95% Conf nfidence Int Interval Lowe wer NONEX NONEX T Time me (p (pre re) 5.70 .34 5.03 6.37 NONEX NONEX T Time me (p (post) 8.57 .50 7.57 9.56 Gr Group: Co Colla llaborat ration 7.61 .49 6.62 8.59 Gr Group: Co Compari mparison 6.66 .50 5.66 7.66
Esti Estimate mated Ma Margi rginal Means al Means (N = 67)
(H (Hattie, 2009 2009)
Co Colla llaborat ration
Co Compari mparison Pre Pretest M = M = 5.8 5.88 SD = 2.82 M = M = 5.5 5.53 SD = 2.67 Post Posttest M = M = 9.3 9.34 SD = 4.34 M = M = 7.8 7.80 SD = 3.76 Effec Effect size size withi within ea each ch condit itio ion d = .84 = .84 (l (large) d = .63 = .63
Branching inte intervie iew (Ha (Hall & & Hor Hord, 2015) 2015) 1.Did you use the COLLAB Protocol? (If yes, ask #2; if no, LoU 0, I, II)
including another not in your original group of users? (If yes, LoU V; if no, LoU IVB, V)
innovation? (If yes, LoU VI; if no, LoU IVB or V)
Protocol? (If (If yes yes, use user orie
LoU III (Me III (Mechanical); ; if if not nothing unu unusual, LoU IV LoU IVA (Rou A (Routine); if impact-oriented, LoU IVB, V, VI)
Im Impact 6 Re 6 Refo focusing Focus is on the exploration of more universal benefits (e.g., major replacement more powerful alternative). 5 Co Colla llaborat ration Focus is on coordination and cooperation with others users. 4 C Conseque uence nce Focus is on impact on “clients” in the immediate sphere of influence. Tas Task 3 Ma 3 Mana nagement Focus is on processes and tasks of using the innovation and the best resources; concerns are related to efficiency, organizing, managing, and time demands. Se Self 2 Pe 2 Pers rsonal Individual is uncertain about the demands of the innovation, his/her to meet those demands, and his/her role within the innovation. 1 Info 1 Informational A general awareness of the innovation and interest in learning more about it is indicated. Unre Unrelated 0 Unc 0 Unconcerned Little concern about or involvement with the innovation is indicated.
Sta Stages of
Concern (H (Hall & & Hord, 2015 2015, p.
86)
Collaborators can choose from a variety of language-focused content and techniques around which to collaborate Collaboration is one option as a process for creating highly interactive language-scaffolded learning environments:
techniques
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001). Roles and responsibilities of speech- language pathologists with respect to reading and writing in children and adolescents [Guidelines]. Available from www.asha.org/policy American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) (2010). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in schools [Professional Issues Statement]. Retrieved from www.asha.org/policy Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77–117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Austin, P. C. (2011). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 399- 424. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. Calvert, L, Kocher, C., Paul, P., Throneberg, R., & Davidson, P. (2003). Collaborative or pull-out intervention: Practice and progress at one elementary school. SIG 16 Perspectives
School-Based Issues, 4, 8-13. Cohen-Mimram, R., Reznik-Nevit, L., & Korona-Gaon, S. (2016). An activity-based language intervention program for Kindergarten children: A retrospective evaluation. Early Childhood Education, 44, 69-78. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934-945.
Ehren, B. J. (2008). STRUCTURE Your Reading. Winter Springs, FL: Student Success Initiatives. Ehren, B. J., Zadroga, C., & Proly, J. L. (2010, November). Value added by SLPs to vocabulary instruction with older students. Paper presented at the convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Philadelphia, PA. Ellis, L., Schlaudecker, C., & Regimbal, C. (1995). Effectiveness of a collaborative consultation approach to basic concept instruction with kindergarten
Farber, J. G., & Klein, E. R. (1999). Classroom-based assessment of a collaborative intervention program with kindergarten and first grade students. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 83-91. Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
the NCEE website: http://whatworks.ed.gov. Friend, M. & Cook, L. (2012). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (7th Ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Goddard, Y. L., & Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877-896. 257-285.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. Graves, M. F. (2016). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Hadley, P. A., Simmerman, A., Long, M., & Luna, M. (2000). Facilitating language development for inner-city children: Experimental evaluation of a collaborative, classroom-based intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 280-295. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
Kaufman, S. S., Prelock, P. A., Weiler, E. M., Creaghead, N. A., & Connelly, C. A. (1994). Metapragmatic awareness of explanation adequacy: Developing skills for academic success from a collaborative communication skills unit. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 174-180.
Lomax, R.G. & Hahs-Vaughn, D. L. (2012). An introduction to statistical concepts. (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge/Taylor Francis. Mattessich, P. W., Murray-Close, M., & Monsey, B. R. (2001). Collaboration: What makes it work? (2nd Ed) St. Paul, MN: Wilder Publishing Center. Mitchell, M. P. (2017). Effects of collaboration between speech-language pathologists and third-grade teachers on student vocabulary outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from UCF Dissertations and Theses. (ucfl.035330164) Mitchell, M. P, Ehren, B. J., & Spielvogel, J. H. (2017). Vocabulary Scenario Technique- Teacher+SLP (VST-T+SLP). Unpublished protocol. Orlando, FL. Mitchell, M. P., Ehren, B. J., & Towson, J. A. (2016). SLP/Teacher Collaboration Innovation Configuration Map. Unpublished instrument. Orlando, FL. Note: Renamed SLP/Teacher Shared-Creation Collaboration Innovation Configuration Map (2019). National Center for Education Statistics (2012). NAEP achievement levels. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/achievement.aspx. National Center for Education Statistics (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012- 470). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2015. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.nationsreportcard.gov. Nelson, T., & Slavit, D. (2008, Winter). Supported teacher collaborative inquiry. Teacher Education Quarterly, 99-116. Nelson, N. W., & Van Meter, A. M. (2006). Partnerships for Literacy in a Writing Lab
Nevin, A. I., Thousand, J. S., & Villa, R. A. (2009). Collaborative teaching for educators: What does the research say? Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 569-575. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2013). Lessons from PISA 2012 for the United States, Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education, OECD Publishing. Parks, A. (2012). Understanding the central themes of the Common Core standards and the need to develop digital literacy and 21st century skills in today’s classrooms. The Learning Project. Retrieved from https://www.daleadershipinstitute.com/sites/daleadershipinstitute/files/Digital- Literacy-Common-Core-white-paper-121029.pdf Paul, D. R., Blosser, J., & Jakubowitz, M. D. (2006). Principles and challenges for forming successful literacy partnerships. Topics in Language Disorders, 26(1), 5-23. Roth, F. P., & Paul, D. R. (2006). Foreword. Topics in Language Disorders, 26(1), 2-4. Schrage, M. (1995). No More Teams! Mastering the Dynamics of Creative Collaboration. New York: Currency Doubleday. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for general causal inferences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Spielvogel, J. H. (2011). Curriculum vocabulary acquisition of 4th graders using a language- sensitive teaching approach. (Unpublished master’s thesis) The University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, United States. Stanovich, K.E., Cunningham, A.E., & Feeman, D.J. (1984). Intelligence, cognitive skills, and early reading progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 278-303. Swenson, N. C. (2000). Comparing traditional and collaborative settings for language intervention. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 22(1), 12-18. Thoemmes, F. (2016). PS Matching in SPSS (Version 3.04). Retrieved from https://sourceforge.net/projects/psmspss/ Thomas, D., & Lance, D. M. (2014). Effects of school-wide intervention on literacy learning: The SLPs support. SIG 16 Perspectives on School Based Issues, 15, 45-53. Throneburg, R., Calvert, L., Sturm, J., Paramboukas, A., & Paul, P. (2000). A comparison of service delivery models: Effects on curricular vocabulary skills in the school
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, & E. Soubrman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wallach, G. P., & Ehren, B. J. (2004). Collaborative models of instruction and intervention. In E.
39- 59). New York: Guilford.
WestEd (2010). Quality teaching for English learners. Retrieved from https://qtel.wested.org/. World Health Organization. (2010). Framework for action on interprofessional education & collaborative practice. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Available from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2010/WHO_HRH_HPN_10.3_eng.pdf Image Slide 5 Active Ingredients- https://www.flickr.com/photos/punkjr/488487553/ Image Slide 26 Share Your Story- https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/en/view-image.php?image=172087&picture=share-your-story
Assessment Procedures and Scoring Fidelity Inter-rater Reliability Administration of pretests and posttests Order- 100% Example items- 100% Task items – 83% pretest; 100% posttests 94% Scoring of pretests and posttests N/A SYN: 100% WIC: 100% NON-EX: 99.8% Data entry verification: 100% Scoring SoCQ N/A 100%
Intervention Procedures Fidelity Inter-rater Reliability SLP/Teacher Collaboration IC map 94%, 96% 100% COLLAB Steps Steps 1-6: 92%, 100% Steps 7-14: 56%, 78% Steps 10-13: 79%, 88% Steps 15-16: 2/3 pts, 2/3 pts 98% LoU Determination N/A Consensus during discussion Collaboration: VST-T+SLP Ave Intro day adherence: 92%, 95% Ave Review day adherence: 84%, 80% Intro days: agreement by class ranged from 96-100% Review days: agreement by class was 98% and 92% Comparison: VST-GE16 Ave Intro day adherence: 96%, 91% Ave Review day adherence: 93%, 77% Intro days: agreement by class ranged from 96-100% Review days: agreement by class 97% and 88%
Key find Key findings
Imp Implic ications
processing.
Previous r evious research search: R Robust v ust vocabulary i cabulary instru structi ction o
defi fini niti tional al ou
tcome m meas asur ures
Key find Key findings:
Imp Implic ications
environments
Previous r evious research search: R Robust v ust vocabu cabulary i lary instru ruct ction on
ntext t (cloze s ze sent ntenc ence) o ) outcomes m
asures es
Key find Key findings:
Imp Implic ications
environments
Previous r evious research search: R Robust v ust vocabu cabulary i lary instru ruct ction on
ntext t (sentenc tence a e anomaly) o aly) outcome
es
During t ring the s e stud udy
Routine use were possible after 7 weeks
nature of the study Aft After the the stu study
the partnership with some modifications to the COLLAB Guiding Steps; modifications may result in lower fidelity on the IC map
concerns; ongoing committee work led by one of the SLPs to facilitate collaborative language services in classrooms
longer period of time
Social V ial Validity ty Goal Goals for for coll collaboration: met met Proc
edur ures es Acceptable: accountability, structure of the Guiding Steps (weekly repetition), co-teaching aspect Needs improvement: time to implement all of the Guiding Steps was difficult to manage (how could it be done with multiple teachers?), COLLAB Guiding Steps template was complex and overwhelming, uncertainty around how to use the COLLAB Protocol without so many supports built in as part of the study Outc Outcomes Ongoing monitoring of student generalization (are they using the words in their spoken and written language)? Questions about how to best serve students who struggle. Students who need above and beyond supports (e.g., IEP) will still need intensive supports beyond scaffolds in the classroom environment resulting from collaboration.
length between classes
attendance logs
with LLD and EL in each condition
vocabulary measures
teacher collaboration pairs
(researcher’s professional connections with SLPs)
classrooms as support role during parts of pretest and posttest administration when assessors out sick
when other adults were in classroom during VST sessions
comparison “typical instruction”) group
The VST is one evidence-based option for vocabulary instruction in a comprehensive literacy program.
integrated throughout the Common Core State Standards.
intensifying literacy instruction. The VST can be used a lens to clarify what robust vocabulary instruction entails.
teaching specific words (seen as a discreet skill).
nuance that is often missed (requires modeling and practice).
as a result of teaching vocabulary using the VST.
(e.g., in classrooms where students are clustered by ability level)
being used by SLPs and teachers in their settings.
Collaboration IC map with input from experts in educational collaboration.
COLLAB Guiding Steps or other versions of guiding steps (e.g., from existing theoretical collaboration models)
habits changed as a result of collaborating with an SLP.
analysis should incorporate analysis of student performance in by under-researched population (e.g., LLD, EL).
Future rese research are areas in in voca vocabulary rese research
scaffold academic language, and intensify instruction differ erently a ently as part
creation than individual educators would do alone.
fewer Tier Tier Two Two/ac academic voca vocabu bulary (Beck et al., 2013) words in their academic vocabulary repertoire.
collaboration intervention will support students’ ability to mak make mean meaning ing fro from, and and use use, acad academi emic vocab vocabulary words when reading, writing, speaking, and listening (Beck et al., 2013).
and the more skills they have to glean meaning from word structure and content, the more the more avai available d desi signs the they have have for for makin making mean meaning (NLG, 1996).
foundation for for acq acquiring new vocabulary lary knowledge a e and w d word s study s y skills ills (Lane & Allen, 2010).
Problem Attemp ttempte ted Solution De Defini ning ng active ingredients and impleme implementi ting them with fidelity
ingredients/key features.
active ingredients. Asse sessi ssing th ng the effec effectiveness of the collaboration
Instructional condition (Collaboration/Treatment Comparison) on dependent variables (student
Determin inin ing p g practicabi bility lity
through the use of research validated tools to measure adoption of new practices in research).
Collaboration aboration/Trea Treatment T tment Teachers hers and and SLP SLPs Comp Comparison Teach Teachers Be Befo fore In Interv rventio tion Professional learning modules SoCQ COLLAB Steps 1-5 Teachers rated vocabulary Pretests (COLLAB Step 6) Professional learning modules Teachers rated vocabulary words Pretests
Colla llabo borati ration/
reatm atment nt Teache hers rs a and S SLPs Ps Compari arison T Teache hers rs Du Duri ring In Interventio Repeated for Weeks 1-6 COLLAB Steps 7-14; 30 minutes/week for beyond class-time activities Introduced 6 vocabulary words (VST- total of 60 minutes Reviewed 6 vocabulary words (VST-T+SLP); total of 60 minutes Displayed classroom word wall exhibit for additional 60 minutes each week Week 7 Only COLLAB Steps 10 and 13 Introduced and reviewed 3 words instead of Displayed classroom word wall exhibit for additional 60 minutes each week Repeated for Weeks 1-6 Introduced 6 vocabulary words GE-16); total of 60 minutes Reviewed 6 vocabulary words GE16 and teacher choice); total of minutes Displayed classroom word wall for additional 60 minutes each Week 7 Same as above, except introduced and reviewed 3 words instead of 6 Displayed classroom word wall for additional 60 minutes each Aft After In Interventio Posttests (COLLAB Step 15) COLLAB Step 16 SoCQ Posttests