Language Levels and Modalities How to Conduct Comprehensive - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Language Levels and Modalities How to Conduct Comprehensive Assessment and Intervention

Hawaii Speech-Language-Hearing Association Nickola Wolf Nelson, PhD, CCC-SLP Professor Emerita, Western Michigan U. nickola.nelson@wmich.edu

Speaker Disclosure

• Financial:

– Receive(d) royalties from publications that inform this presentation:

• Nelson, N. W. (2010). Language and Literacy Disorders: Infancy

through Adolescence. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

• Nelson, N. W., Bahr, C M., & Van Meter, A. M. (2004). The writing

lab approach to language instruction and intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing, Inc. [out of print]

• Nelson, N. W., Plante, E., Helm-Estabrooks, N.,& Hotz, G., (2016).

Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills (TILLS). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing, Inc.

– Financial compensation from ASHA for this Webinar and Part II on Curriculum-Based Language Intervention

– Grants from U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs supporting work on the Writing Lab Approach, and from the Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Special Education Research (Grant R324A100354), for standardization of TILLS. However, the opinions in this presentation are those of the author and not the U.S. government.

• Nonfinancial:

– None

Speaker Acknowledgements

– Coauthors of Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills (TILLS) -- Drs. Elena Plante, Nancy Helm-Estabrooks, & Gillian

Hotz

– Coauthors of the Student Language Scale (SLS) – Drs.

Barbara M. Howes & Michele A. Anderson

– Codevelopers of The Writing Lab Approach -- Dr. Christine

Bahr, Adelia Van Meter, Kalamazoo Public Schools

– Dozens of graduate assistants, collaborating teachers, and participating students

NOTE: Case examples are composites of real students with some details modified to mask identity. All had parental permission and gave their assent for their work to be shared under protocols approved by the Western Michigan University Human Ss Insitutional Review Board.

Course Objectives – After completing this workshop, participants will be able to:

• Identify differences between profiles for students

with oral-written language disorders, dyslexia, and specific comprehension deficits

• Describe evidence-based approaches for treating

problems at the sound/word level and the sentence/discourse level

• Discuss how to collaborate with teachers to

implement a classroom-based writing lab approach to address students’ comprehensive language and literacy needs

Overview

• Why oral and written language assessment?
• Need for a coherent test model that will yield

interpretable results

• Introduction to the quadrant model and the

language levels-by-modalities assessment model

• f the Test of Integrated Language and Literacy

Skills (TILLS)

• Gathering parent, teacher, and student input
• Introduction to curriculum-based language

assessment and intervention

Overlapping categories and using the language-levels quadrant model to sort them out

Language Impairment in School-Age Years

• What things would you need to measure?

– Kindergarten/Grade 1 – Middle elementary – Later elementary – Middle to secondary school

• How do you gather parental and teacher input?

Two Pathways to Identification as LD or S/LI

RtI Tier 1 RtI Tier 2 RtI Tier 3 / Assessment/ Identification IEP for SLD Screening or Referral Assessment & Identification of SLI IEP for SLD Note: PSW = Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses; IEP = Individualized Education Program; SLD = Specific Learning Disability; S/LI = Speech or Language Impaired Formal Assessment (SLS + TILLS) SLS + TILLS

Students Classified as Speech/Language Impaired and Learning Disabled in a Single Cohort Followed Longitudinally

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Kdg 1st 3rd 5th Percentage of Special Ed. Grade Level SLI LD

Based on data reported by Mashburn, A. J., & Myers, S. S. (2010). Advancing research on children with speech-language impairment: An introduction to the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study—Kindergarten Cohort. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 61-69.

Language Disorders Learning Disabilities Reading Disorders

Language Disorders LD (Dyslexia) Reading Disorders

Learning Disabilities

Language Disorders

Dyslexia Oral Language Disorders

Definition of SLD in IDEA

• The term ‘specific learning disability’ means a

disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, spell, or do mathematical calculations. (IDEA 2004, §602.30, Definition)

Note: IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004)

Definition of SLD in IDEA

• The term ‘specific learning disability’ means a

disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, spell, or do mathematical calculations. (IDEA 2004, §602.30, Definition)

Note: IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004)

Rethinking “Processes”

Cognitive Processes Language Processes (Oral and Written) Academic Performance

Think of Reading and Writing as Language Processes, not JUST “achievement” Think of Phonemic Awareness as Language Processes. May be under umbrella of “Cognitive Process”

International Dyslexia Association

• Dyslexia is a language-based learning disability.
• Dyslexia refers to a cluster of symptoms, which

result in people having difficulties with specific language skills, particularly reading.

• Students with dyslexia usually experience

difficulties with other language skills such as spelling, writing, and pronouncing words.

• Dyslexia affects individuals throughout their lives;

however, its impact can change at different stages in a person’s life.

DSM-5 definition of dyslexia

• “Dyslexia is an alternative term used to refer

to a pattern of learning difficulties characterized by problems with accurate or fluent word recognition, poor decoding, and poor spelling abilities” (p. 67).

The purpose of this letter is to clarify that there is nothing in the IDEA that would prohibit the use of the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in IDEA evaluation, eligibility determinations, or IEP

• documents. …

However, regardless of whether a child has dyslexia or any other condition explicitly included in this definition of “specific learning disability,” or has a condition such as dyscalculia or dysgraphia not listed expressly in the definition, the LEA must conduct an evaluation in accordance with 34 CFR §§300.304-300.311 to determine whether that child meets the criteria for specific learning disability or any of the other disabilities listed in 34 CFR §300.8, which implements IDEA’s definition of “child with a disability.”

• N. W. Nelson, Western Michigan U., 2016

Dyslexia Guidance (continued)

OSERS reminds SEAs and LEAs about previous guidance regarding the use of MTSS, including RTI, and timely evaluations,1 specifically that a parent may request an initial evaluation at any time to determine if a child is a child with a disability under IDEA (34 CFR §300.301(b)), and the use of MTSS, such as RTI, may not be used to delay or deny a full and individual evaluation under 34 CFR §§300.304-300.311 of a child suspected of having a disability.

• N. W. Nelson, Western Michigan U., 2016

Dyslexia Guidance (continued)

In determining whether a child has a disability under the IDEA, including a specific learning disability, and is eligible to receive special education and related services because of that disability, the LEA must conduct a comprehensive evaluation under §300.304, which requires the use of a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child. This information, which includes information provided by the parent, may assist in determining: 1) whether the child is a child with a disability; and 2) the content of the child’s IEP to enable the child to be involved in, and make progress in, the general education

• curriculum. 34 CFR §300.304(b)(1).

Language Levels (NOT receptive/expressive)

Language comprehension & Formulation

• Construct

ideas/message

• Formulate or

analyze vocabulary, sentences, & discourse

recognition Word recognition & Production

• Decode/encode

words using phonology & morphology

• Recognize/pro-

nounce/ spell/write words Sentence/ discourse level Expressive Receptive Sound/ word level

Evidence for a language levels model

• No evidence for separate factors for receptive and expressive

language (Tomblin & Zhang, 2006)

• Evidence does support a “simple view” with phonological

and nonphonological language skills as separate factors (Bishop & Snowling, 2004; Catts, Adlof, & Ellis Weismer, 2006; Tunmer & Chapman, 2012)

D Word Recognition C Oral Language Comprehension R Reading Comprehension

Vocabulary Part of C

Simple View of Reading (SVR; Gough & Tunmer, 1986) Simple View of Reading Redux (Tunmer & Chapman, 2012)

Simple View of Reading (SVR)

You can find this diagram on the Internet simply by Googling “reading rope.” The citation is: Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis) abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy (pp. 97- 110). New York: Guilford Press.

Relationships of Disorders of Oral & Written Language

• Two dimensions may

explain dyslexia and specific language impairment (SLI)

– Phonological skills (sound/word level) – Nonphonological skills (sentence/discourse level)

(Bishop & Snowling, 2004; Catts, Adlof, Hogan, & Weismer, 2005)

Quadrant Model

Good listening comp + sentence formulation when talking Low reading decoding + fluency + spelling + word inflection when writing Average in both Low Reading + Low Oral Language High sound/word skills and surface reading Good Reading Decoding + Poor Comprehension

Sentence/Discourse Ability Sound/Word Ability Dyslexia Specific Comprehension Deficit Spoken + Written Disorder Normal Language

(Bishop & Snowling, 2004; Catts, Adlof, Hogan, & Weismer, 2005; Catts, Adlof, & Weismer, 2006; Ramus, Marshall, Rosen, & van der Lely, 2013)

Comprehensive planning – What next?

Does the child have needs?

• Parent input
• Student input
• Teacher input
• Formal testing

What kinds

• f needs?
• Problem of

spoken and/or written language?

• Particular

profile?

• Comorbid

problems?

What should we target?

• Most

important

• Most impaired
• Most likely to

make a difference

What kinds

• f

intervention?

• Materials
• Theoretical

model

Connecting Assessment and Intervention

• Assessment
• Teacher, parent, child interviews
• Norm-referenced testing (curriculum relevant levels x

modalities)

• Curriculum-based language assessment (integrated

sound/word and sentence/ discourse)

• Intervention
• Explicit instruction in the code and structure of words

(sound/word level) as needed

• Curriculum-based language intervention (integrated

sentence/discourse level)

Formal and Informal Assessment

Formal Assessment

• Provides norm-referenced

information

• Provides information about

student’s strengths and weaknesses compared to peers

• Must be administered exactly

as standardized

• Must NOT use assessment

materials for intervention

• May be curriculum relevant

Informal Assessment

• Provides rich qualitative

information

• Provides information about

this student, but not clear how performance compares to peers

• May be modified to probe

deeper; repeat

• May use same materials for

assessment and intervention

• May be curriculum based

Screening Gathering Teacher, Parent, Student Input

Student Language Scale (SLS)

Consider teacher, parent, and student input on the SLS

Multiple sources Co-norming Student Rating Scale

Using the SLS for 3 Validated Purposes

• Screening for dyslexia and other

language/literacy disorders;

• Gathering input from teacher, parent, and

student perspectives to contribute to planning; and

• Promoting home-school communication for

students with and without language/literacy concerns.

Gen Ed. Teacher SLS in 3rd Grade Parent SLS in 3rd Grade

January January

Gen Ed. Teacher SLS in 4th Grade Parent SLS in 4th Grade A Little More than One Year Later

May May

Teacher’s ratings on the first 8 items--

• Are 2 or more ratings <5?

 High sensitivity 90% of 68 students with LLD identified accurately as having problems

• Are all (but 1) ratings >5?

High specificity 90% of 203 students with NL identified accurately as not having problems

Sensitivity Specificity Teacher 61/68 = .90** 182/203 = .90** Parent 203/239 = .85* 1065/1290 = .83* Student 66/90 = .73 257/419 = .61

Correlation between Items 1-8 and total TILLS for Teachers = .752** Parents = .613**

Consider teacher, parent, and student input on the SLS

Multiple sources Co-norming Student Rating Scale

Correlation between Items 3-4 and Sound/Word Composite: Teachers = .671** Parents = .595**

Consider teacher, parent, and student input on the SLS

Multiple sources Co-norming Student Rating Scale

Correlation between Items 1- 2, 5-8 and Sentence/Discourse Composite: Teachers = .720** Parents = .570**

(Nelson, Plante, Helm-Estabrooks, & Hotz, 2016)

What are the language demands of the curriculum?

• Integration across language levels
• Master reading decoding by Grade 3
• Be a competent speller by Grade 3
• Expectation to process complex language that is

discipline specific

• Complex sentence structure
• Cohesion demands connections across sentence and

discourse boundaries

Nelson, N. W., Plante, E., Helm-Estabrooks, N., & Hotz, G. (2015). Test of Integrated Language and Literacy SkillsTM (TILLS™). Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.

Language Levels X Modalities Model

Assessing the Sound/Word Level

Assessing Phonological language skills Use Nonwords or pseudo-words Use Real words

Common Core State Standards

Grade 2. Phonics and Word Recognition

• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.2.3

Know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words.

– Distinguish long and short vowels when reading regularly spelled one- syllable words. – Know spelling-sound correspondences for additional common vowel teams. – Decode regularly spelled two-syllable words with long vowels. – Decode words with common prefixes and suffixes. – Identify words with inconsistent but common spelling-sound correspondences. – Recognize and read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words.

Grade 3. Phonics and Word Recognition

• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.3.3
• Know and apply grade-level phonics and

word analysis skills in decoding words.

– Identify and know the meaning of the most common prefixes and derivational suffixes. – Decode words with common Latin suffixes. – Decode multisyllable words. – Read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words.

Fluency

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.5.3

Know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words.

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.5.3.A

Use combined knowledge of all letter- sound correspondences, syllabication patterns, and morphology (e.g., roots and affixes) to read accurately unfamiliar multisyllabic words in context and out of context.

Grade 5. Phonics and Word Recognition

• 2. Phonemic Awareness (PA)

Sound/Word Level – Formal assessment

“If the word is bip, and we take away the first sound, the word becomes[hesitate]… ip.” “If the word is stig, and we take away the first sound, the word becomes… tig.”

• 10. Nonword Reading (NWRead)
• 4. Nonword Repetition (NWRep)
• 5. Nonword Spelling (NWSpell)

Does the student

• represent phonology of the spoken word?
• show awareness of morphology?

Does the student

• represent phonology using the spoken word?
• show awareness of morphology?

Sound/Word Level – Formal assessment using nonwords

Sound/Word Level – Formal assessment using real words

• 11. Reading Fluency (RF)

The Principal’s Daughter We have a principal. The principal has a daughter. Her name is Sara. She wants to be a clown. She came Monday. ... She had on makeup. .. She looked scary. … Some children cried. … She took off her wig. The children were happy. They knew Sara. Example

• Age 8-10
• Mark any words not

read fluently

• No…
• Sounding out
• Hesitation
• Omission
• Repetition
• Change

• 12. Written Expression (WE)

Sound/Word Level – Formal assessment using real words

The Little Dog There was a dog. He was little. He was brown. He was white. A car almost hit him. It was in front of our school. He was scared. He was okay. Example to illustrate sentence combining.

• Narrative discourse
• Syntactic abilities
• Word-level abilities

Discourse: 4/20 = 20% SS 2 Sentence: 4/4 = 1.00 SS 7 Word: 18/23 = 78% SS 3

Word Level – Formal assessment using real words

Discourse Score: 18/20 content units = 90% WE-Disc SS = 10 Sentence Score: 18 content/7 T-units =2.57 WE-Sent SS = 11 Word Score: 74/88 wds without error = 84% WE-Word SS = 0 18

• 14. Digit Span Forward
• 15. Digit Span Backward
• 14. Digit Span Forward (DSF) Say, “I am going to say some
• numbers. Listen to the numbers, and when I finish, you say them

back to me exactly the same way.”

• 15. Digit Span Backward (DSB) “This time, when I read the

numbers to you, I want you to listen carefully and say them back to me in backward order.”

Assessing the Sentence/Discourse Level (and Vocabulary)

Curriculum-related language assessment (Norm- referenced measures can be) Curriculum-based language assessment (Requires use of materials from the student’s actual curriculum)

Informational Text

• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.2.1

Ask and answer such questions as who, what, where, when, why, and how to demonstrate understanding of key details in a text.

• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.2.2

Identify the main topic of a multiparagraph text as well as the focus of specific paragraphs within the text.

• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.2.3

Describe the connection between a series of historical events, scientific ideas or concepts, or steps in technical procedures in a text. Literature

• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.2.1

Ask and answer such questions as who, what, where, when, why, and how to demonstrate understanding of key details in a text.

• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.2.2

Recount stories, including fables and folktales from diverse cultures, and determine their central message, lesson, or moral.

• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.2.3

Describe how characters in a story respond to major events and challenges.

Common Core State Standards (Grade 2)

Informational Text

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RST.9-10.4

Determine the meaning of symbols, key terms, and other domain- specific words and phrases as they are used in a specific scientific or technical context relevant to grades 9-10 texts and topics.

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RST.9-10.5

Analyze the structure of the relationships among concepts in a text, including relationships among key terms (e.g., force, friction, reaction force, energy).

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RST.9-10.6

Analyze the author's purpose in providing an explanation, describing a procedure, or discussing an experiment in a text, defining the question the author seeks to address.

Literature

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.2

Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary that makes clear the relationships among the key details and ideas.

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.3

Evaluate various explanations for actions or events and determine which explanation best accords with textual evidence, acknowledging where the text leaves matters uncertain.

Common Core State Standards (9-12)

• 3. Story Retelling (SR)

“I’m going to read you a story. Listen carefully. Your job is to tell the story back to me just like I tell it to you.” [score as retained content units]

Sentence/Discourse Level – Formal assessment

• 9. Delayed Story Retelling (DSR)

“Remember the story [Tommy the Trickster/The Rubber Raft]? Tell me the story again. Try to remember as much as you can. Start now.”

Sentence/Discourse Level – Formal assessment

• 7. Reading Comprehension (RC)
• 6. Listening Comprehension (LC)

Sentence/Discourse Cohesion

• Referencing

– “…two new territories. Each…” – “President…his…”

• Ellipsis (omitting established info)

– He did

• Lexical substitution (same concept in different words)

– “topic the teacher makes her class write about the first day of school every year” … “usual first writing assignment”

• Conjunction / transition

– if…then, but, when, etc. – however, therefore, consequently

Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

• 8. Following Directions (FD)
• 13. Social Communication (SC)

Rachel [Ron] wants to politely turn down an invitation for a party she thinks will be boring. What do you think Rachel [Ron] would say?

Sentence/Discourse Level – Formal assessment

• 12. Written Expression (WE)

Assessing WE-Discourse and Sentence level

Discourse: 4/20 = 20% SS 2 Sentence: 4/4 = 1.00 SS 7 Word: 18/23 = 78% SS 3

She

Discourse: 10/20 = 50 SS=3 Sentence: 10/5 = 2.0 SS=11 Word: 35-1=34/35 = 97 SS=11

*Took 30 min

• 12. Written Expression (WE)

Vocabulary – Formal assessment

• 1. Vocabulary Awareness (VA)

bat

• wl

eagle Not a single definition Requires student to activate semantic awareness

• Categorical
• Traits
• Part – whole
• Switch set
• Rule out what applies to all 3

Evidence for the Quadrant Model

Scientific evidence for the two dimensions of the quadrant model

Factor Reference Structure

(Semipartial Correlations)

Final Communality Estimate Factor 1 Factor 2 Phonemic Awareness 0.547 0.074 0.550 Non-word Spelling 0.600 0.067 0.642 Non-word Reading 0.734

• 0.058

0.786 Reading Fluency 0.406 0.077 0.325 Written Expression Word Score 0.409 0.009 0.267 Story Retelling

• 0.052

0.500 0.345 Vocabulary Awareness 0.229 0.472 0.629 Listening Comprehension 0.009 0.548 0.476 Reading Comprehension 0.264 0.420 0.589 Following Directions 0.153 0.409 0.412 Social Communications 0.075 0.476 0.428

Interpret TILLS results for 3 validated purposes

• Identify language/literacy disorder
• Profile patterns of strengths and weaknesses
• Track change over time (6 mos. +)

Purpose 1.

Identify language/literacy disorder

Identification Core Subtests and Sensitivity/Specificity

• Core subtests

– Vocab Aware – NW Spell – NW Read – WE- Discourse

• Sensitivity 88%
• Specificity 85%

6-7 year olds 8-11 year olds

• Core subtests

– Phoneme Aw – NW Spell – Rdg Comp – Reading Fluency – WE-Word

• Sensitivity 86%
• Specificity 90%
• Core subtests

– Vocab Aware – Phoneme Aw – NW Rep

• Sensitivity 84%
• Specificity 84%

12-18 year olds

TILLS Sensitivity/Specificity

Purpose 2.

Profile strengths and weaknesses

Language Levels

Sound/Word Composite Score Sentence/Discourse Composite Score

Sd/Wd (low) < Sent/Disc  Dyslexia Sd/Wd = Sent/Disc (both low)  LLD, S/LI, LD Sd/Wd > Sent/Disc (low)  Specific Comprehension Deficit

Purpose 3.

Track change

• ver time

Interpreting language and literacy profiles

Applying the Quadrant Model

Good listening comp + sentence formulation when talking Low reading decoding + fluency + spelling + word inflection when writing Average in both Low Reading + Low Oral Language High sound/word skills and surface reading Good Reading Decoding + Poor Comprehension

Sentence/Discourse Ability Sound/Word Ability Dyslexia Specific Comprehension Deficit Specific Language Impairment Normal Language

7;9 Grade 1 Boy

History of articulation difficulties Working on /l/ Getting RtI Tier 2 help for reading delays

7 year 9 month old boy

7 year 9 month old boy



Core subtests

• Vocab Aware
• Phoneme Aw
• NW Rep

Sound/word 48 Sentence/discourse 73

Consistent with diagnosis of dyslexia?

7 year 9 mo old boy

Good listening comp & sentence formulation Low reading decoding & fluency & spelling High in both? Low in both? High sound/word skills and surface reading? Low comprehension in listening and reading?

Sentence/Discourse Ability Sound/Word Ability School Classification: S/LI-speech Only Should there be more? Dyslexia Dx is appropriate

7;10 Grade 2 Girl

Teacher and Parent SLS for 7;10, Grade 2 Parent SLS Gen Ed Teacher SLS

Grade 2 girl (age 7;10)

7;10 Grade 2 Girl

Sound/word 50 Sentence/discourse 71



Core subtests

• Vocab Aware
• Phoneme Aw
• NW Rep

Which quadrant?

7;10 Grade 2, Girl

Good listening comp & sentence formulation Low reading decoding & fluency & spelling High in both? Low in both? High sound/word skills and surface reading? Low comprehension in listening and reading?

Sentence/Discourse Ability Sound/ Word Ability

LD as primary eligibility (rdg). Also gets help in class (co-taught by special ed teacher and other assignments read to her). Reading decoding and fluency goals on IEP. Should there be goals related to oral language? Written expression and spelling?

Sound-symbol association (alphabetic principle)

• Use multi-modality, multi-sensory approach to make

sound-symbol association automatic

• Sound/letter  speech “Say /p/”

– Make page for “My Sounds & Letters Book” – Symbol chip (avoid letter names) – Precise articulation; attention to distinctive features

• Sound/speech (visual or aud only)  symbol “Point to /p/”

– From array of easily distinguished sounds/letters ee p t m _o_ s a_e

• Symbol  sound “What sound does this letter make?”
• Sound  letter “Write /p/”
• Letter name  “Point to ‘p’” (use with caution)

Identify words with inconsistent but common spelling-sound correspondences.

Word Pattern Recognition

(Orthographic Principle)

• Consonant  Vowel

– Single consonant  multiple vowels – Multiple consonants  single vowel

• Vowel  Consonant

– Single vowel  multiple consonants – Multiple vowels  single consonant

• CVC
• Onset  Rime

– Common “word families”

• Morphology  Orthography

– Common “chunks” -ing, -tion, un-, dis-

Misses orthographic cues about how to pronounce vowels Reading fluency is a big problem

Is student aware of inflectional and derivational morphemes? Is student using relatively better sentence/ discourse skills to assist with fluency? Is student monitoring comprehension – “Does that make sense?”

Decode words with common Latin suffixes.

Sound blending/ orthographic patterns

• o1

fa_e b

• fee

t e foo1

Distinguish long and short vowels when reading regularly spelled one-syllable words.

Word Families (analogical processes)

• Misses cues about
• rthographic regularities in

reading and spelling

• Limited use of analogical

reading strategies

Read grade- appropriate irregularly spelled words.

Sources for Word Structure Approaches

• Barrie-Blackley, S. (2011). The Structure of Written English & Orton-Gillingham

for SLPs [online course] http://support.lexercise.com/entries/20510387- lexercise-professional-education-courses

• DuBard, E. (1974). Teaching aphasics and other language deficient children:

Theory and application of the association method. Hattiesburg, MS: University Press of Mississippi.

• Lindamood, P., & Lindamood, P. (1998). Lindamood phonemic sequencing

program for reading, spelling, and speech (LiPS; formerly called Auditory Discrimination in Depth). Austin, TX: ProEd.

• Monsees, E. K. (1972). Structured language for children with special language

learning problems. Washington, DC: Children’s Hospital National Medical Center.

• McGinnis, M. (1963). Aphasic children. Washington, DC: A. G. Bell Association.
• Ritchey, K. D., & Goeke, J. L. (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham—

Based Reading Instruction: A Review of the Literature. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 171-183.

• Wasowicz, J., Apel, K., Masterson, J. J., & Whitney, A. (2004). Spell-Links to

Reading & Writing: A Word Study Curriculum. Evanston, IL: Learning by Design.

10;5 Grade 5 Boy

Identified as having a learning disability Reading goals on IEP ADHD No history of spoken language problems Is there evidence of any?

10 year 5 month old boy

10 year 5 month old boy



Core subtests

• Vocab Aware
• NW Spell
• NW Read
• WE-Discourse

Sound/word 91 Sentence/discourse 66

Consistent with diagnosis of dyslexia?

10;5 Grade 5 boy

Good listening comp & sentence formulation? Low reading decoding & fluency & spelling? High in both? Low in both High sound/word skills and surface reading? Low comprehension in listening and reading?

Sentence/Discourse Ability Sound/Word Ability School Classification: LD-Reading Impairment Only + ADHD NOT best fit for dyslexia, but words in context are low Needs: Listening comp Reading comp Vocabulary (semantic relations) Social comm *Stories may be relative strength

Using Curriculum-Based Language Assessment to Evaluate School-Age Students

Curriculum-based language assessment and intervention

“Use of curriculum contexts and content for measuring a student’s language intervention needs and progress” (Nelson, 1989)

• Answers the question:

– Does the student have the language skills to learn the (reading/math/social studies) curriculum?

Ethnographic Interviews

• Student
• Teacher
• Parents

“The goal in interviewing is to have participants talk about things of interest to them and to cover matters of importance to [you] in a way that allows participants to use their own concepts and terms.” (Stainback & Stainback, 1988, p. 52)

Lists and labels about strengths and needs

• What’s the easiest/best

thing about school?

• What’s the hardest/

worst thing? Anecdotes about specific events

• When was the last time you felt

“bored”?

• “When the teacher explained

the math lesson, and I didn’t know what to do.”

“If you could change just one thing, what would that be?”

Interviewing Dan

• M Are you bored with the assignments that are given?
• M Like, the types of things
• M Are those boring?
• M What makes it boring?
• D Sometimes it’s boring.
• D Well, sometimes she gives out something>
• D I don’t know.
• M (Well, um) Let’s think about today when you were in school.
• M Can you think of a time when you were bored today?
• D Yeah.
• M Okay, tell me about it.
• D We were doing math.
• D And I had no idea what to do.
• D So I was bored, I guess.

Question Target

Procedures

• 1. What language

skills are required? Expected Response [ER] Identify language skills and strategies effective students use

• 2. What does the

student currently do? Observed Response [OR] Observe student’s current independent attempt

• 3. What might the

student learn to do differently? Mismatch between ER  OR Use dynamic assessment to establish instructional procedures and targets

• 4. How should

curricular task be scaffolded and changed? Bridge from OR  ER Design scaffolding to help student make connections; modify task only if necessary

Curriculum-based language assessment & intervention: 4 Questions

Math discourse - CBLA

• 1. ER – What does the

task require?

• 2. OR – What does the

student do currently?

• 3. OR  ER – What

might the student learn to do differently?

• 4. OR  ER – How

should the task be scaffolded or modified?

• If there were 5 bike racks at the

school and each could hold 5 bikes, how many bikes could park at the school?

– ER: 5 x 5 = 25 – Child OR: “10”

• Dynamic assessment: Show me

how you figured that out?

– Child OR: 5 + 5 = 10

• Dynamic assessment: Let’s look at

that a little closer and see if we can figure it out.

– First draw the problem – Then do the math

Math discourse

First draw the problem: (Think aloud) Then do the math:

5 (racks) x 5 (bikes each) = 25

Does that make sense? Does it match the picture?

If there were 5 bike racks at the school and each could hold 5 bikes, how many bikes could park?

WHAT DO I NEED TO DO?

Then do the math… First draw the problem: (Think aloud) Does that make sense? Does it match the picture?

Self-talk for math

• 1. Read the directions
• 2. Identify important direction words
• 3. Say the directions in your own words
• 4. Solve the problem step-by-step by asking yourself:
• Do I understand what this problem is about?
• How can I solve this problem?
• What does this problem look like (draw the picture)?
• What is the first step I need to do?
• What is the next step?
• Am I done?
• 5. Recheck to make sure the answer makes sense.

Take-home points

• Comprehensive assessment provides insights not

available otherwise.

• Subtests can be compared psychometrically only

when they are co-normed on the same standardization sample.

• Assessment models should make sense to parents,

teachers, and students—the language levels X modalities model does this.

• Labels are problematic, but individual differences

are more important for planning than a specific label.

• Language/literacy disorder applies whether the

child has S/LI, LD, or dyslexia.

References

Badian, N. A. (1999). Reading disability defined as a discrepancy between listening and reading comprehension: A longitudinal study

• f stability, gender differences, and prevalence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 138-148.

Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K. Abbott, R. D., Begay, K., Coleman, K. B., Curtin, G., Hawkins, J.. M., & Graham, S. (2002). Teaching Spelling and Composition Alone and Together: Implications for the Simple View of Writing. Journal of Educational Psychology 2002, Vol. 94, No. 2, 291–304 Bishop, D. V. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: Same or different? Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 858-886. Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., Hogan, T. P., & Ellis Weismer, S. (2005). Are specific language impairment and dyslexia distinct disorders? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(6), 1378-1396. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10. Hoover, W. A. & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127-160. Nation , K., Clarke, P., Marshall, C. M., & Durand, M. (2004). Hidden language impairments in children: Parallels between poor reading comprehension and specific language impairment? J. of Speech, Language, and hearing Research, 47(1), 199-211. Nelson, N. W., Plante, E., Helm-Estabrooks, N., & Hotz, G., (2016). Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills (TILLS). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Ramus, F., Marshall, C. R., Rosen, S., & van der Lely, H. K. J. (2013). Phonological deficits in specific language impairment and developmental dyslexia: Towards a multidimensional model. Brain, 136, 630–645. Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S.B. Newman & D.D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97–110). New York: Guilford Press. Silliman, E. R., & Berninger, V. W. (2011). Cross-disciplinary dialogue about the nature of oral and written language problems in the context of developmental, academic, and phenotypic profiles. Topics in Language Disorders, 31(1), 6-23. Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Annotation: Does dyslexia exist? The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35(4), 579-595. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2007). Language-related differences between discrepancy-defined and non-discrepancy-defined poor readers: A longitudinal study of dyslexia in New Zealand. Dyslexia, 13(1), 42-66. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012). The simple view of reading redux: Vocabulary knowledge and the independent components hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 453-466.

Thank you – Aloha Q and A