Language Literacy Lab

SUSAN FAUCHEUX
JANNA OETTING
www.lsu.edu/literacylearning/
ASHA, 2001
COLLABORATIVE BASED
THERAPY MODEL
• Lab serves 12-16 students per session
• Curriculum based language objectives
– Focus on skills needed for school/life
– Focus on compensatory strategies to overcome
language deficits
• Daily collaboration between special education
faculty, target children, peer models
• Weekly/monthly collaboration with university
personnel
GOAL OF THE LANGUAGE
LITERACY LAB
• To provide intervention/remediation in
receptive and expressive language skills,
math problem solving, reading
comprehension skills, and written
language skills




Work station/small group centered
Collaborative service delivery model
Multisensory instructional approach
Curriculum based goals/objectives
LANGUAGE LAB FACILITY
Computer
Center
Net TV
Reading/Visual
Center
Listening
Center
Net TV
Writing/
Manipulative
Center
Role-Play/
Game Center
Net
TV
LISTENING CENTER
• Novels/stories under
headphones
• Grammar and Math
to Rap Music
• Computer games/
Internet research via
Net TV
• Phonemic
Awareness
• Listening
Comprehension
WRITING/MANIPULATIVE
CENTER
• Written work
• Manipulative
activities
• Journaling
• Board Work
• Overhead
Transparencies
• Note taking
READING/VISUAL CENTER
• Board Games
• Movies
• TV/VCR
presentations
• Group/Silent
Reading
activities
• Accelerated
Reader activities
ROLE-PLAY/GAME CENTER
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Role – Playing
Board Games
Net TV Activities
Team Competition
Study Skills
Test Taking
Art Work/Projects
Math activities
COMPUTER CENTER
•
•
•
•
Computer Games
Computer Tests
Internet Research
Easy Book/Story
Writer
• Grammar activities
• E-Books
• Teacher Resource
Center
FLOOR ACTIVITIES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Floor Games
Hop-On Grammar
Living Sentences
Line Dancing
Art Projects
Puzzles
Map Skills
Cable TV viewing
STUDENT
MAILBOXES/FOLDERS
• Student Data
Folders
• Peer Tutor
Sign-in
• Worksheet
Mailboxes
• The Learning
Tree
THE LEARNING TREE
• Grade level
Branches
• Student leaves for
80% > mastery
• Student
competition
• Visible
accomplishments
• Salient rewards
STUDENT FOLDER FORMS
Student Log Forms
 date of attendance
 present/absent
 comments
 % of mastery
Student Data Form
 student
identification
 IEP/evaluation
information
 medical
information
 student schedule
READING ACTIVITY
•Teacher Directed
•Peer tutor aided
Orally answer
comprehension
questions
Determine main
idea/predictions
Identify specific
story details
MATH/READING/
LANGUAGE ACTIVITY
•Teacher Directed/
•Peer-tutor/ParaEducator Monitored
Design Haunted
House, draw maps
Internet research
Collect money,
count, make
deposit
Write story on
Easy Book
GRAMMAR ACTIVITY
• Teacher Directed
• Peer tutor assisted
Identify parts of speech
Formulate complex
sentences
Expand sentences with
more complex
structures
Unscramble sentences
Identify incorrect
sentence structures
FUNCTIONAL/THEMATIC
ACTIVITIES
• Design, construct, and run Haunted
House – students collect, count, and
deposit money.
• Treasure Island-read story, build the
island and characters, draw maps
• Scavenger hunt utilizing maps in the zoo
in the rainforest section.
• Rain forest unit – write E-Book
• Huckleberry Finn-read novel, take the trip
• American Revolution – learn about the
people, customs, politics
Research Questions
• Who is served by the lab?
• Does the lab lead to improved skills of the
children?
• How do children classified as language impaired
differ from those on the special education caseload
who do not receive this educational classification?
Who is Served?
• 44 children on special education caseload
22 Learning Disabled
8 Speech-Language Impaired
9 Speech-Language/Learning Disabled
5 Other
Measures of Student Performance
• Teacher evaluations
• Student evaluations
• Students’ GPA in 5 subjects
• Iowa National Percentiles
Teacher Evaluations
• Anonymous questionnaire collected Spring, 2001
–
–
–
–
–
–
Have you visited the lab?
Do you have students who attend lab?
Did the SLP collaborate with you on a regular basis?
Do you feel the lab has helped your students?
Should the lab continue?
Do you have any suggestions to improve the lab?
Results
• 15 teachers completed questionnaire
• All had visited lab, had students in lab, and
reported weekly collaboration with SLP
• All felt the lab should continue
• Suggestions:
– Larger facility, incorporate more math into lab
Student Questionnaires
• How does the lab help you with school?
• How does the lab hurt your school work?
• Should the lab be offered next year?
• How would you change the lab?
Results
• 33 students completed the anonymous
questionnaire
– 28 (85%) provided positive comments about
lab helping them
– 28 (85%) felt the lab should continue
– Suggestions:
• More advanced help, larger facility, have lab
everyday, more tables, more peer tutors, let students
select centers, let students work on homework
Student GPA
• Average GPA
–
–
–
–
–
English
Math
Reading
Social Science
Science
GPA
1999-2000
No Lab
2000-2001
Lab
Average GPA =1.67
5th = 1.81
6th = 1.49
7th = 1.30
8th = 2.08
Average GPA = 1.87
5th = 1.68
6th = 2.11
7th = 1.53
8th = 2.19
Student GPA by Quarter
1.9
1.8
1.7
First
1.6
Mean
Second
Third
1.5
Fourth
1999/2000
YEAR
2000/2001
Iowa National Percentiles
• 1998-1999 No Lab (n = 7)
• 1999-2000 No Lab (n = 14)
• 2000-2001 Lab (n=14)
• All analyses involve pair-wise comparisons
(child is compared to him/herself)
Results
Iowa Composite Percentiles
1999
2000
2001
29.71 (20.68)
28.64 (19.85)
38.57 (15.60) t(13) = 2.70, p = .018 *
Math differences t(13) = 2.61, p = .02 *
Writing differences t(13) = 3.20, p =.007 *
Iowa Composite Scores
60
Bars show Means
50
40
30
20
10
1999
2000
Year
2001
Other Indicators of Success
• 1999-2000 50% of 8th grade students in
special education graduated.
• 2000-2001 70% of 8th grade students in
special education graduated.
• All students completed Treasure Island
Reading Comprehension Test with 80%
during Spring, 2001.
Writing from Journals
• Kranz, L. (1999). All about me: A keepsake
journal for kids. Flagstaff, AZ: Rising
Moon.
• Fall 2000 at beginning of school year
• Spring 2001 at end of school year
– 3 journal entries each semester
Results
• Fall, 2000
• Spring, 2001
– Total utterances per
entry = 12.80
– Total utterances per
entry = 16.05
– Difference word roots
per entry = 46.65
– Different word roots
per entry = 60.95
– Use of complex syntax
in utterances = 4.80
Use of complex syntax in
utterances = 6.20
Question 3
• How do children with a history and current
classification of speech-language
impairment differ from others in special
education that do not carry this educational
classification?
– 10 speech-language impaired/+/-LD
– 10 learning disabled only
Measures
• Standardized language tests
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
Grey Oral Reading Test
Test of Auditory-Perceptual Skills
Test of Adolescent Language
Clinical Evaluation of Language Functions
Oral language sample analyses
Written language sample analyses
Teacher ratings of communication skills
Grades
Results
• No statistical differences, but trends
• Standardized language tests
– Children with speech-language classification scored
lower than those without classification.
• Language samples
– Children with speech-language classification produced
more language with greater complexity and diversity
than those without classification.
• Teacher ratings
– Children with speech-language classification received
higher ratings than those without classification.
Summary
• Lab is working
–
–
–
–
Teacher/Student evaluations
Student grades
Student standardized test scores
Student graduation rate
• Lab meets the needs of children traditionally
served by speech-language clinicians as well as
meets the needs of others in special education.

Download Report