Posted on

Speech, Language, and Literacy Fun with Helen Lester’s Picture Books

Picture books are absolutely wonderful for both assessment and treatment purposes! They are terrific as narrative elicitation aids for children of various ages, ranging from pre-K through fourth grade.  They are amazing treatment aids for addressing a variety of speech, language, and literacy goals that extend far beyond narrative production.

There are numerous children books authors whom I absolutely adore (e.g., Karma Wilson, Keiko Kasza, Jez Alborough, M. Christina Butler, etc.). Today I wanted to describe how I implement books by Helen Lester into my treatment sessions with elementary aged children. (For information on how I use her books: “Pookins Gets Her Way” and “A Porcupine Named Fluffy” for narrative elicitation purposes click HERE.)

It is important to note that while Ms. Lester’s books are intended for younger children (4-7 years; pre-K-3rd grade), older children (~10 years of age) with significant language and learning difficulties and/or intellectual disabilities have enjoyed working with them and have significantly benefited from reading/listening to them.

Two reasons why I love using Ms. Lester’s books are versatility and wealth of social themes. To illustrate, “Hooway for Wodney Wat” and “Wodney Wat’s Wobot” are two books about a shy rat who cannot pronounce his ‘r’ sounds. Wodney is hugely embarrassed by that fact, and since there are no speech-language pathologists in Rodentia-land, Wodney spends his recess, hiding inside his jacket, trying to be as inconspicuous as possible. The arrival of a bullying, Miss-know-it-all, Camilla Capybara, brings some unexpected changes into the school’s dynamic, as well as provides Wodney with a very welcome opportunity to shine socially.

Image result for wodney wobotSpeech Production: Not only is there a phenomenal opportunity to use this book with children struggling with /r/ sound production, but it’s also heavily laden with a plethora of /r/ words in a variety of word positions (e.g., rodeo, robot, contraption, barrel, terrific, fur, prickled, bigger, fear, classroom, smarter, sure, etc.).

Language: There are numerous language goals that could be formulated based on Helen Lester’s books including answering concrete and abstract listening comprehension questions, defining story-embedded vocabulary words, producing word associations, synonyms, antonyms, and multiple meaning words (semantic awareness), formulating compound and complex sentences (syntax), answering predicting and inferencing questions (critical thinking), gauging moods and identifying emotional reactions of characters (social communication), assuming characters’ perspectives and frame of reference (social cognition, theory of mind, etc.), identifying main ideas in text (Gestalt processing) and much, much more.

  • Select Highlights:
    • VocabularyFor the ages/grades that there’ve written for (4-7 years; pre-K-3rd grade), Ms. Lester’s books are laden with a wealth of sophisticated vocabulary words such a: curtsy, contraption, trembled, dreary, shudder, varmint, fashionable, rodent, rattled, shenanigans, chanting, surgical, plunked, occasion, exception, etc.
    • Word Play:  Ms. Lester infuses a great deal of humor and wit in her books. Just look at the names of her characters in “A Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing”, which are: Ewetopia, Ewecalyptus, Ewetensil, Heyewe, Rambunctious, Ramshackle, and Ramplestiltskin.  Her ovine characters live in Pastureland and attend Woolyones’ Costume Balls while her porcine characters eat in a trough-a-teria.  
    • Social Communication: Many of Ms. Lester’s book themes focus on the celebration of neurodiversity (e.g., “Tacky the Penguin”), learning valuable life lessons (e.g., “Me First”), addressing one’s fears (e.g., “Something Might Happen”) and feeling uncomfortable in own skin (e.g., “A Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing”), etc.

Literacy: Similar to the above, numerous literacy goals can be formulated based on these books. These include but are not limited to, goals targeting phonological (e.g., rhyming words, counting syllables in words, etc.) and phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency and comprehension, spelling, as well as the composition of written responses to story questions.

  • Image result for princess penelope's parrotSelect Highlights:
    • Phonics: Students can practice reading words containing a variety of syllable shapes as well as decode low-frequency words containing a variety of consonantal clusters (Examples from “Princess Penelope’s Parrot” are:  hissed, parrot, buzzard, horribly, flicked, plucked, field,  flapped, silence, Percival, velvet, cloak, caviar, clippy-clopped, poofiest, impressed, expensive, galloping, gulped, bouquet, squawked, etc.)
    • Morphology: There’s a terrific opportunity to introduce a discussion on roots and affixes when using Ms. Lester’s books to discuss how select prefixes and suffixes (e.g., ante-, -able, -ive, -ion, etc.) can significantly increase word sophistication of numerous root words (e.g., impressive, exception, etc.)
    • Spelling: There is a terrific opportunity for children to practice spelling numerous spelling patterns to solidify their spelling abilities, including -ee-, -ea-, -ou-,-oo-, -oa-, -ui-, -ck, -tt-, -rr-, -ss-, -cc-, etc.

When working with picture books, I typically spend numerous sessions working with the same book. That is because research indicates that language disordered children require 36 exposures  (as compared with 12 exposures for typically developing children) to learn new words via interactive book reading (Storkel et al, 2016). As such, I discuss vocabulary words before, during, and after the book reading, by asking the children to both repeatedly define and then use selected words in sentences so the students can solidify their knowledge of these words.

I also spent quite a bit of time on macrostructure, particularly on the identification and definitions of story grammar elements as well as having the student match the story grammar picture cards to various portions of the book.

When working with picture books, here are some verbal prompts that I provide to the students with a focus on story Characters and Setting

  • Who are the characters in this story?
  • Where is the setting in this story?
  • Are there multiple settings in this story?
  • What are some emotions the characters experience throughout this story?
  • When did they experience these emotions in the story?
  • How do you think this character is feeling when ____?
    • Why?
    • How do you know?
  • What do you think this character is thinking?
    • Why?
    • How do you know?
  • What are some actions the characters performed throughout the story?
  • What were the results of some of those actions?

Here is a sampling of verbal prompts I provide to the students with a focus on story Sequencing 

  • What happened at the beginning of the story?
    • What words can we use to start a story?
  • What happened next?
  • What happened after that?
  • What happened last?
  • How do we end a story?
  • What was the problem in the story?
  • Was there more than one problem?
    • What happened?
    • Who solved it?
    • How did s/he solve it?
  • Was there adventure in the story?
    • If yes, how did it start and end?

Here is a sampling of verbal prompts I provide to the students with a focus on Critical Thinking 

  • How are these two characters alike/different? (compare/contrast)
  • What do you think will happen next? (predicting)
  •  Why/How do you think ___ happened (inferencing)
  • Why shouldn’t you, couldn’t s/he ____ ? (answering negative questions)
  • What do you thing s/he must do to ______? (problem-solving)
  • How would you solve his problem? (determining solutions)
  • Why is your solution ______ a good solution? (providing justifications)

Image result for tacky penguinHere is a small sampling of verbal prompts I provide to the students with a focus on Social Communication and Social Cognition 

  • How would you feel if ____?
  • What is his/her mood at ____ point in the story?
    • How do you know?
  • What is his/her reaction to the ____?
    • How do you know?
  • How does it make you feel that s/he are _____?
  • Can you tell me two completely different results of this character’s actions?
  • What could you say to this character to make him/her feel better?
    • Why?
  • What would you think if?

At times, I also use Ms. Lester’s guide for the following books: ‘It Wasn’t My Fault’, ‘Listen, Buddy’, ‘Me First’, and ‘A Porcupine Named Fluffy‘ to supplement my therapy sessions goals. It provides additional helpful ideas and suggestions on how her books can be further used in both therapy room as well as the classroom.

Finally, one of the major reasons why I really like Ms. Lester’s books is because some of them are ‘art imitating life’ and do not necessarily end up in a ‘traditional’ happily ever after. To, illustrate, “Princess Penelope’s Parrot” is a book about a spoiled princess who cannot get her new parrot to talk, even after threatening it and calling it insulting names. When Prince Percival comes courting, the parrot takes his hilarious revenge on Princess Penelope, and the parrot and Prince Percival do end up living happily ever after. However, Princess Penelope quickly gets over her embarrassment and goes back to her unrepentantly spoiled way of acting.

There you have it! Just a few of my many reasons why I adore using Helen Lester’s books for language and literacy treatment purposes. How about you? Do you use any of her books for assessment and treatment purposes? If yes, comment below which ones you use and why do you use them?

References:

Helpful Related Smart Speech Therapy Resources: 

 

Posted on

Tips on Reducing ‘Summer Learning Loss’ in Children with Language/Literacy Disorders

Related imageThe end of the school year is almost near. Soon many of our clients with language and literacy difficulties will be going on summer vacation and enjoying their time outside of school. However, summer is not all fun and games.  For children with learning needs, this is also a time of “learning loss”, or the loss of academic skills and knowledge over the course of the summer break.  Students diagnosed with language and learning disabilities are at a particularly significant risk of greater learning loss than typically developing students.

 However, there are a number of things that parents can do in an attempt to address this problem. Firstly, consistency is important, so is that there is an opportunity for the students to attend an extended school year it should definitely be taken. Similarly, while all students deserve a hard-earned break, taking an extended break (e.g., two months) from private therapies is not recommended. In the absence of an opportunity to attend an extended school year program, attendance at a summer camp with a good educational component may be the next best option (if financially viable for the parents).

However, in the absence of these options, parents can still do a great deal with the children at home in order to promote learning as well as mitigate the effects of summer learning loss. Consider creating a learning schedule for the week.  Sit down with your child and determine how many minutes a day s/he would be willing to engage in learning.  Rather than doing everything in one day, create a schedule of dates and times when reading, math, as well as science and social studies may be tackled in manageable quantities.

There are a number of fun educational outings for families to embark on in the summer.  While attendance of museums, zoos, or fairs, is often paid, there are still many free events accessible to parents out of which one could potentially create wonderful learning opportunities.

Image result for free admissionDenizens of major cities such as Washington DC or New York have a plethora of free educational events accessible to them. The Washington Mall offers free admission while numerous New York museums offer free admission on selected days of the week. However, a quick search also reveals that many US states, offer wonderful free educational attractions. Here’s a list of major free educational attractions in the state of NJ, which includes an art museum, a living farm, a center for contemporary art, a naval museum, and a 9/11 memorial, just to name a few.  All of these locations could be turned into wonderful learning opportunities replete with novel vocabulary words with science and social study themes.

In addition to these outings is strongly recommended that parents encourage their children to read for pleasure.   There are numerous lists of books available by grade level for the purpose of summer reading.  Furthermore, it is strongly recommended that parents read aloud to their kids, (link to read aloud book recommendations HERE) especially those who are still emergent readers to facilitate vocabulary growth and “introduce young ears to complex and nuanced syntax“.

But it’s not all books and direct learning. A lot of learning can actually be accomplished indirectly via educational summer games as well.   Games such as A to Z Jr, Tribond Jr, Fib or Not, etc., are terrific for working on word finding, verbal reasoning, problem-solving, storytelling, etc. Furthermore, games such as Hedbanz are fantastic for improving executive function skills in the areas of emotional control, self-monitoring, organization, task initiation, etc.

Summer may be a time when learning slows down, but it doesn’t have to stop! Children can still accomplish a great deal of learning through read alouds, educational outings, fun language promoting games, and much, much more!

FOR A PDF HANDOUT FOR PARENTS PLEASE CLICK HERE

References:

Posted on

Some Facts About ASHA CEUs, Registry, and Approved Provider Courses

Related imageTypically, approximately twice a year, right around late December or at the start of summer vacation in the schools, a flurry of SLPs begin to inquire on a variety of social media forums regarding “free or cheap ASHA CEU’s”.

So today I wanted to take the opportunity to talk about how these CEUs can be acquired in accordance with ASHA compliance.  For newly graduating SLPs as well as Clinical Fellows, CEU’s or Continuing Education Units are the continuing education hours needed by speech pathologists to stay abreast of current developments in the field and maintain their Certificate of Clinical Competence or CCCs. ASHA requires that all holders of CCCs “accumulate 30 Certification Maintenance Hours (CMHs) of professional development during each 3-year certification maintenance interval in order to maintain their ASHA Certificates of Clinical Competence (CCC).”

Wait a minute you might say. Weren’t you just talking about continuing education units? And the truth is, I was, but ASHA does not require you to specifically obtain CEU’s from ASHA Approved Providers in order to maintain your credentials. According to ASHA what you need to accrue are your professional development hours, which you can obtain from a number of sources.

Let’s look at the difference between CEU’s and CMH’s. CEU’s are continuing education units.  You can obtain them by going to conferences and workshops presented by ASHA approved providers.  In contrast, CMH’s are your Certification Maintenance Hours -1 contact hour (60 minutes)=1 CMH.

Image result for certificate of trainingHere before the continue, it is very important to discuss the role of the ASHA registry, you know the one for which you pay $28 a year.  The ASHA registry is a paid service provided by ASHA.  The way it works is as follows. You find a conference being offered by an ASHA approved provider, attended it and earn your CEUs. The conference organizers will then forward the information that you attended the conference to ASHA and if you are presently paying for an ASHA registry, CEUs will be recorded in your transcript. Essentially this works similarly to a college registrar office. You accumulate CEUs, ASHA maintains a record of your CEUs, and forwards you an official transcript once a year upon request.  According to the ASHA website there are numerous benefits to their service (you can see them all HERE).

But must you absolutely purchase the ASHA registry? The answer is absolutely NOT!  Here is where we can go back to our discussion of CEU’s and CMH’s.   As mentioned before CMHs are professional development hours. ASHA will accept them, no questions asked, provided they are one of the following activities:

  • Teacher Trainings 
  • Private Practice Training/Seminars
  • Supervisor Trainings
  • Employer-sponsored in-services 
  • State association workshops
  • College/university course work

All you need to do is to obtain a certificate of attendance and keep it for your records in case you are audited. That’s it!  You do not need to pay for these courses if they are offered through your job for free (or if you can find them for free)!   As long as you can provide proof of PD attendance, ASHA will accept it and will grant you your certificate renewal.

Image result for liability insuranceOf course, there may be several instances in which it may be desirable for SLPs to maintain their ASHA registry in addition to the pure convenience of not keeping one’s own records.  SLPs who take a significant amount of continuing education coursework through ASHA approved providers are eligible for the ACE award, which is given by ASHA after 7.0 ASHA CEUs (70 contact hours) are accumulated in the period of three years or less.  One practical reason why the ACE award is desirable, beyond the overall recognition of the SLPs diligence in pursuing continued education, is that upon its receipt, SLPs are eligible for professional liability insurance discount of 15% (by possessing CCC+ACE).

However, for SLPs who attain less than 7.0 CEUs in a three-year period (or less), the ASHA Registry represents pure convenience at best, and not much else. So, if you want to save $28, and are willing to keep your own CEU records, not only do you not have to pay for the CEU registry, you don’t even have to take courses from ASHA approved continuing education providers in order to maintain your certificate of clinical competence.

For more information regarding obtaining evidence-based coursework in speech pathology as well as current controversies pertaining to the evidence base of select ASHA-approved CEU providers, visit SLPs for Evidence-Based Practice on Facebook for a variety of discussions on this topic.

 

 

 

Posted on

Analyzing Narratives of School-Aged Children

Related imageIn the past, I have written about why narrative assessments should be an integral part of all language evaluations.  Today, I’d like to share how I conduct my narrative assessments for comprehensive language testing purposes.

As mentioned previously, for elicitation purposes, I frequently use the books recommended by the SALT Software website, which include: ‘Frog Where Are You?’ by Mercer Mayer, ‘Pookins Gets Her Way‘ and ‘A Porcupine Named Fluffy‘ by  Helen Lester, as well as ‘Dr. DeSoto‘ by William Steig.

Depending on the child’s age, I may read the story to the child or ask the child to read the story to me. One of the reasons why I like to utilize the second option is because it also allows me to ascertain, to some extent, the child’s reading skills in the areas of phonological awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary, as well as reading comprehension.

After that, I ask the child to retell the story back to me. Once again, depending on the child’s age as well as the estimated extent of his/her language severity, I may show the pictures from the story (and cover up the words) or ask the child to tell the story back to me without the benefit of visual support

Frog Where Are You IntroAs the child is retelling the story I digitally record his/her narrative so I can later transcribe and analyze it.  As the child is retelling the story, I may use verbal prompts such as: ‘What else can you tell me?’ and ‘Can you tell me more?’ to elicit additional information. However, I try not to prompt the child excessively; otherwise, the child is merely producing heavily prompted responses vs. telling me a spontaneous story. I then transcribe the child’s narrative verbatim and include all the pauses, mazes, linguistic reformulations, etc. This is particularly important for the purpose of determining the extent of the child’s word finding difficulties (if any) as well as in order to establish whether the child can retell a story with ease or if s/he struggles significantly during this task.

Here’s an example of what my transcription and analysis look like for first-grade students. Below narrative was produced by a 6-year-old student after I’ve read to her a script of  ‘Frog Where Are You?’ by Mercer Mayer.     Image result for frog where are youAnalysis: This student’s narrative was judged to be immature and decontextualized for her age.  The student’s strengths included the inclusion of all the relevant story grammar elements (for her age), some dialogue (e.g., “Frog! Where are you?”), as well as limited use of perspective taking (e.g., /mad/; /the boy checked that the dog was OK/, etc.). However, her narrative was very difficult to follow due to its limited coherence and cohesion.  The presence of grammatical, syntactic, and pragmatic errors, tangential story production, as well as abrupt and confusing shifts between settings and characters made it further confusing and difficult to follow.

With respect to microstructure, the student’s story was composed of numerous partially produced phrases and simple sentences, had limited temporal markers (e.g., then), and did not contain an adequate number of complex and compound sentences as is appropriate for a child her age (Paul, 1981). Throughout her narrative student inconsistently used anaphoric referencing. She was observed to overuse the pronoun ‘he’, which resulted in lack of clarity regarding which characters – the dog, the boy, or the turtle, she was referring to.  She also at times evidenced pronoun confusion (referred to the boy as ‘it’).

Image result for frog where are youThroughout her narrative, the student also evidenced a number of word finding difficulties manifested via word/phrase repetitions and revisions, use of fillers (e.g., “um”), and pauses, which made her story difficult for listeners to follow. Usage of invented vocabulary (e.g., stairpass) as well as target word substitutions (e.g., /roof/ vs. /cliff/) was also noted (German, 2005).

Summary: A 6-0-year-old student is expected to be at the True Narratives Level I (Hedberg & Westby, 1993), characterized by a well-developed plot, character development, clear sequencing of events, and consistent perspectives which focus around an incident in a story. Weaknesses in the area of narrative ability possess adverse impact on academic performance in the areas of oral language, reading, and written expression. Narrative weaknesses also significantly correlate with social communication deficits (Norbury, Gemmell & Paul, 2014), which this student is currently displaying. In order to facilitate academic and social success in this area, therapeutic intervention is strongly recommended.

Please note that the above analysis is by no means exhaustive. Furthermore, there are numerous other ways one can analyze a narrative sample. Nevertheless, I hope you found the above example useful for your language assessment purposes. Stay tuned for another example of my narrative analysis, to be posted shortly. Meanwhile, feel free to share in the comments section of this post, how you perform narrative assessments and what materials you use for this purpose.

References:

Helpful Smart Speech Therapy Resources: 

 

Posted on

Do Our Therapy Goals Make Sense or How to Create Functional Language Intervention Targets

In the past several years, I wrote a series of posts on the topic of improving clinical practices in speech-language pathology.  Some of these posts were based on my clinical experience as backed by research,  while others summarized key point from articles written by prominent colleagues in our field such as Dr. Alan KamhiDr.  David DeBonnisDr. Andrew Vermiglio, etc.

In the past, I have highlighted several articles from the 2014 LSHSS clinical forum entitled: Improving Clinical Practice. Today I would like to explicitly summarize another relevant article written by Dr. Wallach in 2014, entitled “Improving Clinical Practice: A School-Age and School-Based Perspective“, which discusses how to change the “persistence of traditional practices” in order to make our language interventions more functional and meaningful for students with language learning difficulties.

Image result for geraldine wallachDr. Wallach begins her article by describing 3  fairly typical to the schools’ scenarios.  In the first one,  a group of second graders with narrative retelling goals are working on a sequencing activity (“First the soup is on the counter, next it is opened, then it is cooked on the stove, last it is put in a bowl and ready to eat.”).

In the second scenario,  a group of fourth graders are working on following directions presented to them by the clinician (“Pick up the red triangle before you touch the large, green circle.”)

Image result for ambiguous newspaper headlinesIn  the third scenario,  a group of middle schoolers  are working on interpreting  newspaper headlines (“Jazz Helps Lakers Become Mellow in Victory.”)

Dr. Wallach then poses several overarching questions:

  • Do these goals make sense in the current context of research pertaining to language, learning, and literacy?
  • ‘Are the targets relevant to language and academic contexts beyond the “speech room” (i.e., are the choices, curriculum, and classroom relevant)?’
  • ‘Are they relevant to language learning in general?’
  • ‘Is the intervention’s focus encouraging performance (short-term learning that is context-bound) or long-term and context-independent learning?’ (p. 128)

She then delves deeper into where these goals come from as well as presents some suggestions regarding how these goals could be altered in order to make them more functional.

She begins by explaining that labeling SLP  provided school-based services as “speech” “creates artificial barriers, inaccurate perceptions, and inappropriate intervention recommendations that exacerbate an already complex situation, that is, meeting the language learning and literacy needs of students across a changing landscape of required knowledge and skills needed to succeed academically.” (128)

From there,  she explains why targets in the first two scenarios are inaccurate and not functional.  She explains that while working on improving narrative abilities is functional,  working on isolated sequencing abilities is not functional since in the context of her present scenario the child was not retelling an actual story. Furthermore, ‘the clinician’s focus on sequencing as an underlying skill comes from sources that are unknown’ and ‘the “transfer” to producing and comprehending temporal and causal narratives from the soup scenario is an assumption that research fails to support” (128) She adds, that  “Duke and Pearson (2008/2009) mirror these notions when they state that the “transfer [of taught skills and strategies] decreases as a function of distance from the original information domain” (p. 113).”    Then, of course, there is the usage of “expository text (i.e., a sequential text) rather than narrative text,”  further indicating that the goal is not functionally transferable.  The second graders are receiving a message that we are working on storytelling skills,  when in reality that is not what is taking place in the session.

To balance the above criticism, Dr. Wallach does describe a number of positive elements involved in what her fictional clinician in her scenario is doing: (e.g, using expository text knowledge, talking about language, etc.), but she also asks: (1) Is the activity developmentally appropriate? and (2) Are the metalinguistic task aspects too complex for children that age? (129).

Now, let’s move on to multiple step commands, a persistent intervention meme, created because our students have difficulty understanding instructions, paying attention in class, as well as processing and completing classroom assignments.

The problem is that the processing of multistep directions is influenced by a number of contextual, semantic, and linguistic factors.  By far, not all multistep directions are created equal. Some are far more contextually related and semantically constrained than others (e.g., “After you open the book, turn to page 120” vs. “Pick up the red triangle before you touch the large, green circle.”) (p. 129). Consequently, “following directions” is not a simple task of “memorizing the steps”, rather it is a complex process which involves activation of available semantic and syntactic knowledge, comprehension of sentences with a variety of clauses, as well as numerous other linguistic factors.

Unfortunately, the provision of decontextualized directions will not meaningfully assist the students with comprehension of school work and navigation of the classroom environment. As such, rather than teaching the students multiple step directions which will not meaningfully transfer to other settings it may be far more appropriate to teach the students how to request clarification from their speakers in order to break up complex instructions into manageable chunks of information.

In contrast, the goals and procedures in the 3rd scenario (see pgs. 127-128 for full details ) are actually supported by research in developmental disorders.  The SLP is helping students to be actively involved in language by activating their background knowledge, use new strategies, reduce competing resources, heighten the students’ metalinguistic abilities, as well as incorporating aspects of both language and literacy into sessions, making her intervention highly relevant to the curriculum.

Dr. Wallach then moves on to provide constructive suggestions regarding how intervention services can be improved in the school setting. This includes: “(a) creating intervention goals that are knowledge-based and help students connect known and new information; (b) balancing content knowledge and awareness of text structure in functional, authentic tasks that optimize long-term retention and transfer across grades and content-area subjects; and (c) matching students’ language goals and objectives to the “outside world” of curricular and classroom contexts.” (p. 130)

First, “research suggests that engaging students in prior knowledge activities increases the comprehension and retention of information” (p. 130). In other words, “when too much is new, comprehension and retention suffer; something has to “give” or be modified to facilitate learning” (p. 130).  She suggests using a familiar high-interest topic to teach a discrete amount of new information.  Here, the role of background knowledge is hugely important when it comes to learning. “Engaging students in prior knowledge activities that include questioning and other meaning-based strategies encourage them to use and express what they do know, talk about what they need to know and become more actively involved in interacting with spoken and written text (Wallach et al., 2014)” (p. 131).

To illustrate, Dr. Wallach provides an example from a ninth-grade science textbook, laden with complex information. She then explains how to “use of evidence-based strategies including self-questioning and clinician-led discussions to guide students” in better understanding the material via use of various frameworks (e.g., K-W-L) (p. 131). She also emphasizes how within a collaborative framework SLPs can focus on aspects of text structure to ask relevant questions about content.

From there she segues into a fifth-grade history text and explains that  “No kit or program from the hundreds that appear in ASHA Convention exhibit halls year after year will come to our rescue” (131), As such, SLPs need to teach their clients both macro (text organization) and micro (syntax, morphology, etc.) components of language so they could successfully navigate complex texts. A number of researchers (e.g., A. Kamhi, C. Scott, M. Nippold, B. Ehren, etc.) have highlighted the fact that our middle school and high school students lack the comprehension of complex morphosyntax. Hence, explicitly teaching it to out students will significantly improve both our clinical practice and their academic outcomes. Here, Dr. Wallach also recommends the work of “McKeown and her colleagues (e.g., Beck, McKeown, & Worthy, 1995McKeown et al., 2009McKeown, Beck, Sinatra, & Loxterman, 1992) when trying to understand the complex interaction between content and structure knowledge.” (p. 132)

After that Dr. Wallach segues into a discussion on how our clients’ language goals can be better aligned with the academic curricular demands. She states that SLPs need to delve deeper (or at all) into disciplinary literacy (teaching our students subject-specific comprehension and vocabulary). Here, collaboration with content-area teachers is very important. “For example, science involves many technical terms and definitions and requires clear and concise cause and effect thinking (Fang, 2004Halliday, 1993). “The noun phrases [in science texts] contain a large quantity of information that in more commonsense language of everyday life would require several sentences to express” (Fang, 2012, p. 24). ” (132). “Alternatively, social studies involves being able to put events into a context, comparing sources, and understanding the biases of the writer. Unlike science, authorship is important in history.” (132)

Dr. Wallach suggests a number of questions clinicians can ask selves about our students when determining therapy targets:

  1. Can they handle complex syntactic forms that are more common in written language than spoken language?
  2. Do they have an understanding of word derivations?
  3. Do our students know how to write a compare and contrast expository piece?
  4. Are they able to evaluate sources information?
  5. Do they use prior knowledge and experience to help them comprehend new information?

She then offers SLPs valuable ideas on how to create a thoughtful balance between general and subject-specific language targets (see pg 133 for complete details).

Dr. Wallach concludes her article with the following points.

  • Students with language learning disabilities are at a disadvantage in school due to having reduced/limited background knowledge and language proficiency as compared to typically developing peers. Hence “school-based SLPs must consider ways that students’ language abilities influence and interact with their academic success (Wallach et al., 2014). Our intervention should be seen as developing a set of language initiatives focused toward content-area learning (A. S. Bashir, personal communication, 2012; Wallach et al., 2009). ” 
  • Staying focused on the continuum of change across the grades is an important aspect of clinical practice in the school years. Likewise, as suggested by many authors, connecting our preschool endeavors to the horizon of school-age demands underpins our work over time
  • As we look to changes in service delivery models in schools including research that supports response-to-intervention (RtI) models (e.g., Wixson, Lipson, & Valencia, 2014), we can be optimistic that less relevant and nonfunctional practices will die natural deaths.” (pgs. 133-134)

There you have it! Numerous practical suggestions as well as functional clarifications from Dr. Wallach so SLPs can improve their treatment practices with school-aged children.  And for more information, I highly recommend reading the other articles in the same clinical forum, all of which possess highly practical and relevant ideas for therapeutic implementation.

They include:

References:

  • Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Worthy, J. (1995). Giving text a voice can improve students’ understanding. Reading Research Quarterly30, 220–238.
  • Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2008/2009). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. Journal of Education189, 107–122.
  • Fang, Z. (2004). Scientific literacy: A systematic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education89, 335–347. 
  • Fang, Z. (2012). Language correlates of disciplinary literacy. Topics in Language Disorders32, 19–34. 
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 69–85). London, England: Falmer.
  • McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly44, 218–253. 
  • McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly27, 79–93.
  • Wallach, G. P., Charlton, S. J., & Christie, J. (2009). Making a broader case for the narrow view? Where to begin? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools40, 201–211. 
  • Wallach, G.P. (2014). Improving clinical practice: A school-age and school-based perspective. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45, 127-136
  • Wallach, G.P., Charlton, S., & Christie Bartholomew, J. (2014). The spoken-written comprehension connection: Constructive intervention strategies. In C.A. Stone, E.R. Silliman, B.J. Ehren, & G.P. Wallach (Eds). Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 485-501). NY: Guilford Press.
  • Wixson, K. K., Lipson, M. Y., & Valencia, S. W. (2014). Response to intervention for teaching and learning in language and literacy. InStone, C. A., Silliman, E. R., Ehren, B. J., & Wallach, G. P. (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (2nd ed., pp. 637–653). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Helpful Social Media Resources:

SLPs for Evidence-Based Practice

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Clinical Assessment of Elementary-Aged Students Writing Abilities : Suggestions for SLPs

Image result for child writingRecently I wrote a blog post regarding how SLPs can qualitatively assess writing abilities of adolescent learners. Today due to popular demand, I am offering suggestions regarding how SLPs can assess writing abilities of early-elementary-aged students with suspected learning and literacy deficits. For the purpose of this post, I will focus on assessing writing of second-grade students since by second-grade students are expected to begin producing simple written compositions several sentences in length (CCSS).

So how can we analyze the writing samples of young learners? For starters, it is important to know what the typical writing expectations look like for 2nd-grade students. Here’s is a sampling of typical expectations for second graders as per several sources (e.g., CCSS, Reading Rockets, Time4Writing, etc.)

  • With respect to penmanship, students are expected to write legibly.
  • With respect to grammar, students are expected to identify and correctly use basic parts of speech such as nouns and verbs.
  • With respect to sentence structure students are expected to distinguish between complete and incomplete sentences as well as use correct subject/verb/noun/pronoun agreements and correct verb tenses in simple and compound sentences.
  • With respect to punctuation, students are expected to use periods correctly at the end of sentences. They are expected to use commas in sentences with dates and items in a series.
  • With respect to capitalization, students are expected to capitalize proper nouns, words at the beginning of sentences, letter salutations, months and days of the week, as well as titles and initials of people.
  • With respect to spelling, students are expected to spell CVC (e.g., tap), CVCe (e.g., tape), as well as CCVC words (e.g., trap), high frequency regular and irregular spelled words (e.g., were, said, why, etc),  basic inflectional endings (e.g., –ed, -ing, -s, etc), as well as to recognize select orthographic patterns and rules (e.g., when to spell /k/ or /c/ in CVC and CVCe word, how to drop one vowel (e.g., /y/) and replace it with another /i/, etc.)

Now let’s apply the above expectations to a writing sample of a 2nd-grade student whose parents are concerned with her writing abilities in addition to other language and learning concerns. This student was provided with a  typical second grade writing prompt: “Imagine you are going to the North Pole. How are you going to get there? What would you bring with you? You have 15 minutes to write your story. Please make your story at least 4 sentences long.

The following is the transcribed story produced by her. “I am going in the north pole. I am going to bring food my mom toy’s stoft (stuffed) animals. I am so icsited (excited). So we are going in a box. We are going to go done (down) the stars (stairs) with the box and wate (wait) intile (until) the male (mail) is hear (here).”

Analysis: The student’s written composition content (thought formulation and elaboration) was judged to be impaired for her grade level.  According to the CCSS, 2d grade students are expected to ‘”write narratives in which recount a well-elaborated event or short sequence of events, include details to describe actions, thoughts, and feelings, use temporal words to signal event order, and provide a sense of closure.” However, the above narrative sample by no means satisfies this requirement.  The student’s writing was excessively misspelled, as well as lacked organization and clarity of message.  While portions of her narrative appropriately addressed the question with respect to whom and what she was going to bring on her travels, her narrative quickly lost coherence by her 4th sentence, when she wrote: “So we are going in a box” with further elaborations regarding what she meant by that sentence.  Second-grade students are expected to engage in basic editing and revision of their work. This student only took four minutes to compose the above-written sample and as such had more than adequate amount of time to review the question as well as her response for spelling and punctuation errors as well as for clarity of message, which she did not do. Furthermore, despite being provided with a written prompt which contained the correct capitalization of a place: “North Pole”, the student was not observed to capitalize it in her writing, which indicates ongoing executive function difficulties with the respect to proofreading and attention to details.  

Impressions: Clinical assessment of the student’s writing revealed difficulties in the areas of spelling, capitalization, message clarity as well as lack of basic proofreading and editing, which require therapeutic intervention.   

Now let us select a few writing goals for this student.

Long-Term Goals:  Student will improve her writing abilities for academic purposes.

  • Short-Term Goals
  1. Student will label parts of speech (e.g., adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, etc.)  in compound sentences.
  2. Student will use declarative and interrogative sentence types for story composition purposes
  3. Student will correctly use past, present, and future verb tenses during writing tasks.
  4. Student will use basic punctuation at the sentence level (e.g., commas, periods, and apostrophes in singular possessives, etc.).
  5. Student will use basic capitalization at the sentence level (e.g., capitalize proper nouns, words at the beginning of sentences, months and days of the week, etc.).
  6. Student will proofread her work via reading aloud for clarity
  7. Student will edit her work for correct grammar, punctuation, and capitalization

Notice the above does not contain any spelling goals. That is because given the complexity of her spelling profile I prefer to tackle her spelling needs in a separate post, which discusses spelling development, assessment, as well as intervention recommendations for students with spelling deficits.

There you have it. A quick and easy qualitative writing assessment for elementary-aged students which can help determine the extent of the student’s writing difficulties as well as establish a few writing remediation targets for intervention purposes.

Using a different type of writing assessment with your students? Please share the details below so we can all benefit from each others knowledge of assessment strategies.

 

 

Posted on

FREE Resources for Working with Russian Speaking Clients: Part II

Image result for ресурсы для логопедииA few years ago I wrote a blog post entitled “Working with Russian-speaking clients: implications for speech-language assessment” the aim of which was to provide some suggestions regarding assessment of bilingual Russian-American birth-school age population in order to assist SLPs with determining whether the assessed child presents with a language difference, insufficient language exposure, or a true language disorder.

Today I wanted to provide Russian speaking clinicians with a few FREE resources pertaining to the typical speech and language development of Russian speaking children 0-7 years of age.

Below materials include several FREE questionnaires regarding Russian language development (words and sentences) of children 0-3 years of age, a parent intake forms for Russian speaking clients, as well as a few relevant charts pertaining to the development  of phonology, word formation, lexicon, morphology, syntax, and metalinguistics of children 0-7 years of age.

It is, however, important to note that due to the absence of research and standardized studies on this subject much of the below information still needs to be interpreted with significant caution.

Select Speech and Language Norms:

Image result for развитие речи детей

Select Parent Questionnaires (McArthur Bates Adapted in Russian):

  • Тест речевого и коммуникативного развития детей раннего возраста: слова и жесты (Words and Gestures)
  • Тест речевого и коммуникативного развития детей раннего возраста:  слова и предложения (Sentences)
  • Анкета для родителей (Child Development Questionnaire for Parents)

Материал Для Родителей И Специалистов По  Речевым
Нарушениям contains detailed information (27 pages) on Russian child development as well as common communication disrupting disorders

Stay tuned for more resources for Russian speaking SLPs coming shortly.

Related Resources:

 

Posted on

It’s All Due to …Language: How Subtle Symptoms Can Cause Serious Academic Deficits

Scenario: Len is a 7-2-year-old, 2nd-grade student who struggles with reading and writing in the classroom. He is very bright and has a high average IQ, yet when he is speaking he frequently can’t get his point across to others due to excessive linguistic reformulations and word-finding difficulties. The problem is that Len passed all the typical educational and language testing with flying colors, receiving average scores across the board on various tests including the Woodcock-Johnson Fourth Edition (WJ-IV) and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-5 (CELF-5). Stranger still is the fact that he aced Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition (CTOPP-2), with flying colors, so he is not even eligible for a “dyslexia” diagnosis. Len is clearly struggling in the classroom with coherently expressing self, telling stories, understanding what he is reading, as well as putting his thoughts on paper. His parents have compiled impressively huge folders containing examples of his struggles. Yet because of his performance on the basic standardized assessment batteries, Len does not qualify for any functional assistance in the school setting, despite being virtually functionally illiterate in second grade.

The truth is that Len is quite a familiar figure to many SLPs, who at one time or another have encountered such a student and asked for guidance regarding the appropriate accommodations and services for him on various SLP-geared social media forums. But what makes Len such an enigma, one may inquire? Surely if the child had tangible deficits, wouldn’t standardized testing at least partially reveal them?

Well, it all depends really, on what type of testing was administered to Len in the first place. A few years ago I wrote a post entitled: “What Research Shows About the Functional Relevance of Standardized Language Tests“.  What researchers found is that there is a “lack of a correlation between frequency of test use and test accuracy, measured both in terms of sensitivity/specificity and mean difference scores” (Betz et al, 2012, 141). Furthermore, they also found that the most frequently used tests were the comprehensive assessments including the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals and the Preschool Language Scale as well as one-word vocabulary tests such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test”. Most damaging finding was the fact that: “frequently SLPs did not follow up the comprehensive standardized testing with domain-specific assessments (critical thinking, social communication, etc.) but instead used the vocabulary testing as a second measure”.(Betz et al, 2012, 140)

In other words, many SLPs only use the tests at hand rather than the RIGHT tests aimed at identifying the student’s specific deficits. But the problem doesn’t actually stop there. Due to the variation in psychometric properties of various tests, many children with language impairment are overlooked by standardized tests by receiving scores within the average range or not receiving low enough scores to qualify for services.

Thus, “the clinical consequence is that a child who truly has a language impairment has a roughly equal chance of being correctly or incorrectly identified, depending on the test that he or she is given.” Furthermore, “even if a child is diagnosed accurately as language impaired at one point in time, future diagnoses may lead to the false perception that the child has recovered, depending on the test(s) that he or she has been given (Spaulding, Plante & Farinella, 2006, 69).”

There’s of course yet another factor affecting our hypothetical client and that is his relatively young age. This is especially evident with many educational and language testing for children in the 5-7 age group. Because the bar is set so low, concept-wise for these age-groups, many children with moderate language and literacy deficits can pass these tests with flying colors, only to be flagged by them literally two years later and be identified with deficits, far too late in the game.  Coupled with the fact that many SLPs do not utilize non-standardized measures to supplement their assessments, Len is in a pretty serious predicament.

But what if there was a do-over? What could we do differently for Len to rectify this situation? For starters, we need to pay careful attention to his deficits profile in order to choose appropriate tests to evaluate his areas of needs. The above can be accomplished via a number of ways. The SLP can interview Len’s teacher and his caregiver/s in order to obtain a summary of his pressing deficits. Depending on the extent of the reported deficits the SLP can also provide them with a referral checklist to mark off the most significant areas of need.

In Len’s case, we already have a pretty good idea regarding what’s going on. We know that he passed basic language and educational testing, so in the words of Dr. Geraldine Wallach, we need to keep “peeling the onion” via the administration of more sensitive tests to tap into Len’s reported areas of deficits which include: word-retrieval, narrative production, as well as reading and writing.

For that purpose, Len is a good candidate for the administration of the Test of Integrated Language and Literacy (TILLS), which was developed to identify language and literacy disorders, has good psychometric properties, and contains subtests for assessment of relevant skills such as reading fluency, reading comprehension, phonological awareness,  spelling, as well as writing  in school-age children.

Given Len’s reported history of narrative production deficits, Len is also a good candidate for the administration of the Social Language Development Test Elementary (SLDTE). Here’s why. Research indicates that narrative weaknesses significantly correlate with social communication deficits (Norbury, Gemmell & Paul, 2014). As such, it’s not just children with Autism Spectrum Disorders who present with impaired narrative abilities. Many children with developmental language impairment (DLD) (#devlangdis) can present with significant narrative deficits affecting their social and academic functioning, which means that their social communication abilities need to be tested to confirm/rule out presence of these difficulties.

However, standardized tests are not enough, since even the best-standardized tests have significant limitations. As such, several non-standardized assessments in the areas of narrative production, reading, and writing, may be recommended for Len to meaningfully supplement his testing.

Let’s begin with an informal narrative assessment which provides detailed information regarding microstructural and macrostructural aspects of storytelling as well as child’s thought processes and socio-emotional functioning. My nonstandardized narrative assessments are based on the book elicitation recommendations from the SALT website. For 2nd graders, I use the book by Helen Lester entitled Pookins Gets Her Way. I first read the story to the child, then cover up the words and ask the child to retell the story based on pictures. I read the story first because: “the model narrative presents the events, plot structure, and words that the narrator is to retell, which allows more reliable scoring than a generated story that can go in many directions” (Allen et al, 2012, p. 207).

As the child is retelling his story I digitally record him using the Voice Memos application on my iPhone, for a later transcription and thorough analysis.  During storytelling, I only use the prompts: ‘What else can you tell me?’ and ‘Can you tell me more?’ to elicit additional information. I try not to prompt the child excessively since I am interested in cataloging all of his narrative-based deficits. After I transcribe the sample, I analyze it and make sure that I include the transcription and a detailed write-up in the body of my report, so parents and professionals can see and understand the nature of the child’s errors/weaknesses.

Now we are ready to move on to a brief nonstandardized reading assessment. For this purpose, I often use the books from the Continental Press series entitled: Reading for Comprehension, which contains books for grades 1-8.  After I confirm with either the parent or the child’s teacher that the selected passage is reflective of the complexity of work presented in the classroom for his grade level, I ask the child to read the text.  As the child is reading, I calculate the correct number of words he reads per minute as well as what type of errors the child is exhibiting during reading.  Then I ask the child to state the main idea of the text, summarize its key points as well as define select text embedded vocabulary words and answer a few, verbally presented reading comprehension questions. After that, I provide the child with accompanying 5 multiple choice question worksheet and ask the child to complete it. I analyze my results in order to determine whether I have accurately captured the child’s reading profile.

Finally, if any additional information is needed, I administer a nonstandardized writing assessment, which I base on the Common Core State Standards for 2nd grade. For this task, I provide a student with a writing prompt common for second grade and give him a period of 15-20 minutes to generate a writing sample. I then analyze the writing sample with respect to contextual conventions (punctuation, capitalization, grammar, and syntax) as well as story composition (overall coherence and cohesion of the written sample).

The above relatively short assessment battery (2 standardized tests and 3 informal assessment tasks) which takes approximately 2-2.5 hours to administer, allows me to create a comprehensive profile of the child’s language and literacy strengths and needs. It also allows me to generate targeted goals in order to begin effective and meaningful remediation of the child’s deficits.

Children like Len will, unfortunately, remain unidentified unless they are administered more sensitive tasks to better understand their subtle pattern of deficits. Consequently, to ensure that they do not fall through the cracks of our educational system due to misguided overreliance on a limited number of standardized assessments, it is very important that professionals select the right assessments, rather than the assessments at hand, in order to accurately determine the child’s areas of needs.

References:

Posted on

Making Our Interventions Count or What’s Research Got To Do With It?

Two years ago I wrote a blog post entitled: “What’s Memes Got To Do With It?” which summarized key points of Dr. Alan G. Kamhi’s 2004 article: “A Meme’s Eye View of Speech-Language Pathology“. It delved into answering the following question: “Why do some terms, labels, ideas, and constructs [in our field] prevail whereas others fail to gain acceptance?”.

Today I would like to reference another article by Dr. Kamhi written in 2014, entitled “Improving Clinical Practices for Children With Language and Learning Disorders“.

This article was written to address the gaps between research and clinical practice with respect to the implementation of EBP for intervention purposes.

Dr. Kamhi begins the article by posing 10 True or False questions for his readers:

  1. Learning is easier than generalization.
  2. Instruction that is constant and predictable is more effective than instruction that varies the conditions of learning and practice.
  3. Focused stimulation (massed practice) is a more effective teaching strategy than varied stimulation (distributed practice).
  4. The more feedback, the better.
  5. Repeated reading of passages is the best way to learn text information.
  6. More therapy is always better.
  7. The most effective language and literacy interventions target processing limitations rather than knowledge deficits.
  8. Telegraphic utterances (e.g., push ball, mommy sock) should not be provided as input for children with limited language.
  9. Appropriate language goals include increasing levels of mean length of utterance (MLU) and targeting Brown’s (1973) 14 grammatical morphemes.
  10. Sequencing is an important skill for narrative competence.

Guess what? Only statement 8 of the above quiz is True! Every other statement from the above is FALSE!

Now, let’s talk about why that is!

First up is the concept of learning vs. generalization. Here Dr. Kamhi discusses that some clinicians still possess an “outdated behavioral view of learning” in our field, which is not theoretically and clinically useful. He explains that when we are talking about generalization – what children truly have a difficulty with is “transferring narrow limited rules to new situations“. “Children with language and learning problems will have difficulty acquiring broad-based rules and modifying these rules once acquired, and they also will be more vulnerable to performance demands on speech production and comprehension (Kamhi, 1988)” (93). After all, it is not “reasonable to expect children to use language targets consistently after a brief period of intervention” and while we hope that “language intervention [is] designed to lead children with language disorders to acquire broad-based language rules” it is a hugely difficult task to undertake and execute.

Next, Dr. Kamhi addresses the issue of instructional factors, specifically the importance of “varying conditions of instruction and practice“.  Here, he addresses the fact that while contextualized instruction is highly beneficial to learners unless we inject variability and modify various aspects of instruction including context, composition, duration, etc., we ran the risk of limiting our students’ long-term outcomes.

After that, Dr. Kamhi addresses the concept of distributed practice (spacing of intervention) and how important it is for teaching children with language disorders. He points out that a number of recent studies have found that “spacing and distribution of teaching episodes have more of an impact on treatment outcomes than treatment intensity” (94).

He also advocates reducing evaluative feedback to learners to “enhance long-term retention and generalization of motor skills“. While he cites research from studies pertaining to speech production, he adds that language learning could also benefit from this practice as it would reduce conversational disruptions and tunning out on the part of the student.

From there he addresses the limitations of repetition for specific tasks (e.g., text rereading). He emphasizes how important it is for students to recall and retrieve text rather than repeatedly reread it (even without correction), as the latter results in a lack of comprehension/retention of read information.

After that, he discusses treatment intensity. Here he emphasizes the fact that higher dose of instruction will not necessarily result in better therapy outcomes due to the research on the effects of “learning plateaus and threshold effects in language and literacy” (95). We have seen research on this with respect to joint book reading, vocabulary words exposure, etc. As such, at a certain point in time increased intensity may actually result in decreased treatment benefits.

His next point against processing interventions is very near and dear to my heart. Those of you familiar with my blog know that I have devoted a substantial number of posts pertaining to the lack of validity of CAPD diagnosis (as a standalone entity) and urged clinicians to provide language based vs. specific auditory interventions which lack treatment utility. Here, Dr. Kamhi makes a great point that: “Interventions that target processing skills are particularly appealing because they offer the promise of improving language and learning deficits without having to directly target the specific knowledge and skills required to be a proficient speaker, listener, reader, and writer.” (95) The problem is that we have numerous studies on the topic of improvement of isolated skills (e.g., auditory skills, working memory, slow processing, etc.) which clearly indicate lack of effectiveness of these interventions.  As such, “practitioners should be highly skeptical of interventions that promise quick fixes for language and learning disabilities” (96).

Now let us move on to language and particularly the models we provide to our clients to encourage greater verbal output. Research indicates that when clinicians are attempting to expand children’s utterances, they need to provide well-formed language models. Studies show that children select strong input when its surrounded by weaker input (the surrounding weaker syllables make stronger syllables stand out).  As such, clinicians should expand upon/comment on what clients are saying with grammatically complete models vs. telegraphic productions.

From there lets us take a look at Dr. Kamhi’s recommendations for grammar and syntax. Grammatical development goes much further than addressing Brown’s morphemes in therapy and calling it a day. As such, it is important to understand that children with developmental language disorders (DLD) (#DevLang) do not have difficulty acquiring all morphemes. Rather studies have shown that they have difficulty learning grammatical morphemes that reflect tense and agreement  (e.g., third-person singular, past tense, auxiliaries, copulas, etc.). As such, use of measures developed by (e.g., Tense Marker Total & Productivity Score) can yield helpful information regarding which grammatical structures to target in therapy.

With respect to syntax, Dr. Kamhi notes that many clinicians erroneously believe that complex syntax should be targeted when children are much older. The Common Core State Standards do not help this cause further, since according to the CCSS complex syntax should be targeted 2-3 grades, which is far too late. Typically developing children begin developing complex syntax around 2 years of age and begin readily producing it around 3 years of age. As such, clinicians should begin targeting complex syntax in preschool years and not wait until the children have mastered all morphemes and clauses (97)

Finally, Dr. Kamhi wraps up his article by offering suggestions regarding prioritizing intervention goals. Here, he explains that goal prioritization is affected by

  • clinician experience and competencies
  • the degree of collaboration with other professionals
  • type of service delivery model
  • client/student factors

He provides a hypothetical case scenario in which the teaching responsibilities are divvied up between three professionals, with SLP in charge of targeting narrative discourse. Here, he explains that targeting narratives does not involve targeting sequencing abilities. “The ability to understand and recall events in a story or script depends on conceptual understanding of the topic and attentional/memory abilities, not sequencing ability.”  He emphasizes that sequencing is not a distinct cognitive process that requires isolated treatment. Yet many SLPs “continue to believe that  sequencing is a distinct processing skill that needs to be assessed and treated.” (99)

Dr. Kamhi supports the above point by providing an example of two passages. One, which describes a random order of events, and another which follows a logical order of events. He then points out that the randomly ordered story relies exclusively on attention and memory in terms of “sequencing”, while the second story reduces demands on memory due to its logical flow of events. As such, he points out that retelling deficits seemingly related to sequencing, tend to be actually due to “limitations in attention, working memory, and/or conceptual knowledge“. Hence, instead of targeting sequencing abilities in therapy, SLPs should instead use contextualized language intervention to target aspects of narrative development (macro and microstructural elements).

Furthermore, here it is also important to note that the “sequencing fallacy” affects more than just narratives. It is very prevalent in the intervention process in the form of the ubiquitous “following directions” goal/s. Many clinicians readily create this goal for their clients due to their belief that it will result in functional therapeutic language gains. However, when one really begins to deconstruct this goal, one will realize that it involves a number of discrete abilities including: memory, attention, concept knowledge, inferencing, etc.  Consequently, targeting the above goal will not result in any functional gains for the students (their memory abilities will not magically improve as a result of it). Instead, targeting specific language and conceptual goals  (e.g., answering questions, producing complex sentences, etc.) and increasing the students’ overall listening comprehension and verbal expression will result in improvements in the areas of attention, memory, and processing, including their ability to follow complex directions.

There you have it! Ten practical suggestions from Dr. Kamhi ready for immediate implementation! And for more information, I highly recommend reading the other articles in the same clinical forum, all of which possess highly practical and relevant ideas for therapeutic implementation. They include:

References:

Kamhi, A. (2014). Improving clinical practices for children with language and learning disorders.  Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(2), 92-103

Helpful Social Media Resources:

SLPs for Evidence-Based Practice

Posted on

It’s a Fairy Tale (Well, Almost) Therapy!

I’ve always loved fairy tales! Much like Audrey Hepburn “If I’m honest I have to tell you I still read fairy-tales and I like them best of all.” Not to compare myself with Einstein (sadly in any way, sigh) but “When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than any talent for abstract, positive thinking.”

It was the very first genre I’ve read when I’ve learned how to read. In fact, I love fairy tales so much that I actually took a course on fairy tales in college (yes they teach that!) and even wrote some of my own (though they were primarily satirical in nature).

So it was a given that I would use fairy tales as a vehicle to teach speech and language goals to the children on my caseload (and I am not talking only preschoolers either). Continue reading It’s a Fairy Tale (Well, Almost) Therapy!