School-Age Language
Intervention:
Writing Meaningful Goals
and Monitoring Progress
Julie
Wolter, PhD, C
CC-SLP
j u l i e , . w o l te r @ u s u . e d u
U t a h S t a te U n i v e r s i t y
Teresa
Ukrainetz , PhD
, CCC-SLP
t u k r a i n e @ u w yo . e d u
Univer sity of
W yo m i n g
Catherine
Ross , MS, CCC-
Get Your Game On!
SLP
C r o s s 1 u w yo . e d u
Univer sity of
W yo m i n g
Jill
Andrus, MS, C
CC-SLP
[email protected]
U t a h S t a te U n i v e r s i t y
Framework
Teresa
Ukrainetz
Goals
Cathy Ross
&
Jill Andrus
Teaching/
Measuring
Progress
Julie Wolter
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
Case
Studies
Cathy Ross
&
Jill Andrus
Meaningful?…
We always say this but what does it mean?
Meaningful = contextualized
Contextualized = in context, part of the
contexts of life
Contexts of life = school
School = Educational success
Okay, but how does this translate into
dx, goals, tx, and progress monitoring?
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
3
THE WAY INTO BEING MEANINGFUL
 SLPs treat skills (+ behaviors + strategies +
processes…)
 But skills+ do not exist in isolation
 Skills are deployed in activities, for
reasons, with motivations, under particular
conditions, in orchestration with many other
skills
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
4
WHOLE ACTIVITIES
 Whole activities have reasons or purposes beyond
tx
 AKA “purposeful activities”
 More than tx drills with entertaining twists
 Teaching skills-in-activities also called:
 Contextualized skill tx (Ukrainetz, 2006)
 Activity-based tx (Bricker et al., 1998)
 Concentrated-normative (Rice, 1995)
 Naturalistic (? Everyone)
 Hybrid (Fey, 1986)
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
5
WHAT ARE WHOLE ACTIVITIES THAT
MATTER IN SCHOOL?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Conducting a science experiment
Understanding an event in history book
Authoring an imaginative narrative
Giving a science presentation
Composing a descriptive essay
Participating in a small group discussion…

Just go through a student’s day to find whole
activities that matter for educational success
Or check out Standards & Benchmarks (but
more on that later…)

Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
6
SO HOW DO WE TREAT ACTIVITIES??
We don’t, we treat skills, but as skills-inactivities, as parts of the whole
Situated learning: Skill acquisition involves
not only what is learned, but how it is learned
and how is used (Brown, Collins, & Duguid,
1989)
Based on Soviet activity theory (Leontiev,
1981; Wertsch, 1981)
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
7
COMPONENTS OF A PURPOSEFUL
ACTIVIT Y
Motive: Underlying emotional force
Purpose: Reasons or goals of the activity
Condition: Facilitating and constraining
features
Steps & Strategies: Conscious actions to
achieve the purpose
Skills & Processes: Unconcious, automated
operations
Ukrainetz (1998, 2006)
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
8
Activity Analysis –motives
 What motivates this student in this activity?
Internal locus of control (Self-direction & care for others)

Esteem (Feelings of success & self-respect)

Academics (Knowledge & skills competencies)

Belongingness (Sense of trust, acceptance, care)

Safety (School structure & discipline)

Physiology (Hunger, thirst, attention)
Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of basic needs
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
9
Activity analysis – purpose
When a student engages in an activity, does
he know why he does it?
The student is writing sentences
Does he know he is making a story that should
entertain and make sense to others?
Or is it all about just getting 5 correct sentences
down and crossing it off his list?
Activity purpose is not the tx goal, but the
daily life reason for the activity
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
10
Activity analysis – Skills & strategies
 What does the student need to do to in the activity?
 What does he do competently?
1. Come up with story ideas
2. Decide on setting, character, and problem…
 What does he do poorly?
1. Use descriptive adjectives
2. Use relative clauses to give info about characters
3. Provide motivations and attempts in episodes
4. Sequence story events
5. Spell words
6. Stay on task…
 Which will you systematically target as goals in tx?
 Which will you ignore or compensate to carry out the
activity?
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
11
Activity analysis – Facilitating and
Constraining Conditions
 Under what conditions does the student have this
activity in the classroom?
 What is helpful? What is hurtful?
 Demands? Distractions?
 How can you set up the activity in the speech room
so there are more helpful than hurtful conditions?
 But maintain the motive, the purpose, and the main
skills and strategies involved in the activity
How can you simplify but maintain the whole?
And teach the skills that form the whole?
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
12
SO WHAT MAKES AN ACTIVIT Y  TX?
 Common elements of success in tx efficacy research
 Explicit, intensive, and supportive (Torgesen et al.,
2004, Berninger et al., 2003)
 Intensive, focuses attention, presents multiple trials,
vary task complexity systematically, and reward
progress (Gillam, Loeb, & Friel-Patti, 2001; Gillam et
al., 2008)
 Across disorder, goal, approach, and procedure
 Quality > approach
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
13
RAISE IN TX
Critical Elements of Tx
Repeated opportunities for learning & practice
Attention and engagement
Intensity of instruction
S ystematic learning support
E xplicit skill focus
(Ukrainetz, 2006 with an added A)
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
14
The Continuum of Instruction –Regular to
Therapeutic
R: Few ⇒ Some ⇒ Many
A: Instructions ⇒ Plus Reminders ⇒ Constant Structure
I: Class ⇒ Group ⇒ Individual; Rare ⇒ Regular ⇒
Frequent
S: Little ⇒ Some ⇒ Lots
E: Implicit ⇒ Apparent ⇒ Explicit (meta)
 The specifics depend on the skill being taught
 Reading vs. phonemic awareness
 Narrative structure vs. expository structure
 Set of vocabulary vs. word learning strategies
RTI & SLP
15
BACK TO SKILLS IN ACTIVITIES
 Activity analysis and RAISE provides guidance for tx
of skills within purposeful educational activities
 But how do we structure tx to accomplish this?
 And how do we measure progress on skills in
activities?
 Within a skills-in-activities, whole-part framework
(Gillam et al., 1995; Gillam & Ukrainetz, 2006)
And that means what?
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
16
THE GAME IS THE AIM!
Skill 1
(baskets)
Skill2
(dribble)
Skill3
(passing)
GAME (basketball)
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
17
TEACHING DRIBBLING OR BASKETBALL?
 Teaching dribbling without the game?
 Drills on skills with stickers for rewards
 Just dribble, dribble, dribble with a private coach
 Make that dribbling fun
 Learn to dribble really well
 Trust that dribbling will transfer to the game going on in the
gym
 If it doesn’t, the student didn’t choose to apply his skills
 But the private coach did his job
 And why the student doesn’t like to play the game, the coach can’t
imagine
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
18
OR THIS COACHING HIERARCHY, WITH
MASTERY AT EACH STEP?
1. Bounce a ball
2. Dribble a ball
3. Dribble and shoot
4. Dribble, move, and shoot
5. Dribble, move, and pass
6. Dribble and pass with an opposing player
7. Dribble, move, and pass with an opposing player
8. Dribble, move, and pass with three on each side
9. Play the game – uhoh, too late, the year is over,
maybe next year…
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
19
HOW ABOUT THIS WHOLE-PART VERSION
OF COACHING?
1. Play a chaotic, poor, but fun whole basketball game
2. Work on a dribbling drill, a passing drill, a shooting
drill
3. Play a less chaotic, but still fun basketball game
4. Work on skill drills a bit more
5. Play an almost orderly, almost skillful, fun game
6. Work on dribbling in the game, passing in the next
game, shooting in the next game
7. Take a break and just play the game
8. Back to skill drills, but no worries, another game is
coming up…
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
20
TEACHING THE COMMUNICATION GAMES
OF LIFE
 Teach the game
 Teach the skills needed to play
 Inside the games as integrated play (the whole)
 Outside the games as skill drills (the parts)
 With systematic scaffolding everywhere from the coach
 Track performance
 Keep the score for the game
 Track the stats on skills in the game
 Add up performance in skill drills
But remember – the GAME is the aim!
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
21
THERAPY LINKED TO
STANDARDS:
SELECTING A GAME
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
Basketball
, soccer, h
ockey, or
polo?
22
THERAPY LINKED TO STANDARDS
Tx goals linked to state academic standards
and benchmarks
Standards and benchmarks may list the game or
component skills
The aim of tx is still the game
Tx goals list the game (purposeful activity) and
the target skills
The goal is achieved when the game is
played at a “proficient” performance level
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
23
K-12 STANDARDS
Speaking and Listening
• Inclusion of formal and informal talk
Language
• Using standard English in formal writing and
speaking
 Determining word meanings and word
nuances
 Acquiring general academic and domainspecific words and phrases
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
24
K-12 Standards continued…
Reading
• Foundational Skills
• Print concepts (K−1)
• Phonological awareness (K−1)
• Phonics and word recognition (K−5)
• Fluency (K−5)
• Reading Comprehension
• Balance of literature and informational texts
Writing
•
•
Writing informative/explanatory texts
Writing narratives
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
25
COMMON CORE STANDARDS
Common Core Standards
http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards
 IPAD APP:
 EZ Common Core at the App. store
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
26
TRANSLATING BENCHMARKS TO TX
GOALS
 Requires strategic use to result in individualized,
appropriate tx goals
 Check the standard, then check the benchmarks
 Third grader Sally will produce oral narratives at X
criterion:
1. Cohesive pronoun reference (Sue, she, she)
2. Relative clauses (Sue was a girl who loved frogs)
3. Elaborated episode (complication, internal
response, attempt, consequence, reaction)
4. Self-appraisal (How did I do?)
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
27
3 RD GRADE WRITING STANDARD & BENCHMARKS
STANDARD: Students use the writing process and use appropriate
strategies to write a variety of expressive and expository pieces
1.For cohesion – LA3.2A.4: Students use grade-level-appropriate
conventions of spelling, mechanics, punctuation, grammar, and
usage such as use of pronouns, use of ar ticles, capitalization of
holidays or historical periods, and use of commas with city and
state, in dates, and in addresses.
2.For relative clauses – LA3.2A.3: Students write a variety of
grammatically correct sentences and recognize voice in their own
and others’ writing.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
28
More Benchmarks – goal LINKS
1. For episodes – LA3.2B.2: Students write and share literar y
texts (stories, journals and poems) using grade-levelappropriate strategies such as providing a context within
which action takes place, including well-chosen details to
develop the plot, and providing insight into why the selected
event is memorable.
2. For self-review – LA3.2A.6: Students use strategies to draft
and revise writing such as focusing on one topic; using
elements of a specific genre; and checking for clarity,
organization, and descriptive details. (WSBE, 2008, p.28)
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
29
3 RD GRADE WRITING PERFORMANCE
LEVELS
 Advanced – Not our concern
Below Basic – Not our aim
 Proficient – Write with an intended purpose and audience with
evidence of voice and format. Their writing shows logical
organization. Ideas are suppor ted with sufficient, relevant
details. Sentence structure is varied and correct. Proficient
writers demonstrate reasonable control of conventions.
 Basic – Need suppor t to write with evidence of intended purpose
and audience. Their writing shows some organization with
minimal awareness of voice. Ideas are evident but suppor ting
details may be minimal or irrelevant. Sentences have some
variety with few errors in structure. Word choice is generally
correct and there is some control of conventions.
(WSBE,
2008, p. 29)
30
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
SOCIAL STUDIES BENCHMARKS:
IDEAS FOR TX SKILLS-IN-ACTIVITIES
 SS4.3.1: Students describe the importance of major
resources, industries, and economic development of
the local community and Wyoming
 SS4.3.2: Students describe different ways that
people earn a living in the local community and in
Wyoming
 Skills in these describing activities?
 Descriptive discourse
 Curricular vocabulary
 Seeking word meanings
 Adjectives
 Elaborated noun phrases…
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
31
6 TH GRADE LEVEL STANDARD FOR
INFORMATIONAL TEXT
 LA6.1A.2
 Students understand grade-level-appropriate
technical and subject-specific vocabulary.
 LA6.1A.3
 Students comprehend main idea and supporting
details in grade-level-appropriate texts through
interpretation, inference and analyzing, and read on
both the literal and inferential levels, supplying
textual evidence, and prior knowledge.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
32
BACK TO THE GAME ANALOGY
Skill 1
(baskets)
Skill2
(dribble)
Skill3
(passing)
GAME (basketball)
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
33
TEACH THE GAME AND SKILLS
Teach in whole-part-part-part-whole format
(Ukrainetz &
Gillam, 2006)
1. Start with a storybook or expository text for skill
introduction
1. Middle are multiple focused activities on each skill
SEMANTICS: defining words, generating, webbing
SYNTAX : sentence expansion, sentence combining
NARRATIVE : story grammar components, pictography
2. End with a story creation or expository project for
integration of skills (oral or written)
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
34
MULTI-SKILL EXPOSITORY GOAL
 By 10/07/2012, when participating in a book
discussion, Billy will improve expository discourse
by summarizing main ideas and details using
targeted vocabulary from paragraphs read aloud
with 90% accuracy and low clinician scaffolding
as measured by progress monitoring SLP rubric.
GAME
book discussion
SKILLS
identify main ideas
identify details
learn vocabulary
read paragraph aloud
SCAFFOLDING
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
35
SINGLE-SKILL EXPOSITORY GOALS
1. By 10/07/2012, when par ticipating in a book discussion,
Billy will improve expositor y discourse by summarizing main
ideas and details from paragraphs read aloud with 90%
accuracy and low clinician scaffolding as measured by
progress monitoring SLP rubric.
2. By 10/07/2012, when par ticipating in a book discussion,
Billy will improve expositor y discourse using targeted
vocabular y from textbook with 90% accuracy and low
clinician scaffolding as measured by progress monitoring
SLP rubric.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
36
2 ND GRADE LEVEL STANDARD FOR
INFORMATIONAL TEXT
LA2.1C Students demonstrate understanding
of informational text
LA2.1C.3 Students use a variety of source to
gather information, such as table of contents,
charts, informational books, and guest
speakers.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
37
EXPOSITORY GOAL
 10/07/2012, when par ticipating in a class discussion, Billy
will improve expositor y discourse by asking and answering
“wh” questions about details from an informational book read
to him with 70% accuracy and low clinician suppor t.
GAME
class discussion
SKILLS
answer “wh” questions
ask “wh” questions
SCAFFOLDING
read book sections aloud
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
38
2 ND GRADE LEVEL STANDARD FOR
NARRATIVE DISCOURSE
 1RL2 – Retell stories, including key details, and
demonstrate understanding of their central message or
lesson
 1RL3 – Describe characters, settings, and major events
in a story, using key details
 2SL5 – Tell a story or recount an experience with
appropriate facts and relevant, descriptive details,
speaking audible in coherent sentences
 1L1e – Use verbs to convey a sense of past, present, and
future
 2L6 – Use words and phrases acquired through
conversations, reading and being read to, and responding
to texts including using adjectives and adverbs to
describe
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
MULTI-SKILL NARRATIVE GOAL
By 06/04/2011 , when par ticipating in a stor y retell, Andrea will
improve narrative discourse, by retelling a stor y with stor y
grammar elements, targeted vocabular y, and correct past
tense verbs with 80-90% accuracy and low clinician
scaffolding as measured by progress monitoring rubric.
GAME
narratives
SKILLS
narrative story grammar components
(initiating event, attempt consequence)
vocabulary
past-tense –ed
SCAFFOLDING
retelling 1 story, questioning, reminders,
physical prompts
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
SINGLE-SKILL NARRATIVE GOALS
1. By 6/07/2012, when par ticipating in a narrative retell,
Andrea will improve narrative discourse, by retelling a stor y
with stor y grammar elements with 80-90% accuracy and low
clinician scaffolding as measured by progress monitoring
rubric.
2. By 6/07/2012, when par ticipating in a narrative retell,
Andrea will use targeted vocabular y with 80-90% accuracy
and low clinician scaffolding as measured by progress
monitoring rubric.
3. By 6/07/2012, when par ticipating in a narrative retell,
Andrea will demonstrate correct past tense verbs with 8090% accuracy and low clinician scaffolding as measured by
progress monitoring rubric.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
41
SOME SUGGESTED
RESOURCES FOR
GETTING IN THE GAME
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
42
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
43
NARRATIVE, SYNTAX, SEMANTICS
RESOURCES
•
Narratives, Language Intervention and Literature Units


•
Gillam, R. B., & Ukrainetz, T.A. (2006). Language intervention though
literature-based units. In Ukrainetz, T.A. (Ed.), Contextualized Language
Intervention: Scaffolding PreK-12 Literacy Achievement. (pp.59-94). Eau
Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.
Ukrainetz, T.A. (2006). Teaching narrative structure:
coherence, cohesion, and captivation. In Ukrainetz, T.A. (Ed.), Contextualized
Language Intervention: Scaffolding PreK-12 Literacy Achievement. (pp.195246). Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.
Syntax


Nippold, M. (2006). Later language development. Austin, TX:Pro-Ed.
Wallach, G. and Miller, L. (1988). Language intervention and academic
success. Boston, MA: College-Hill Publications.
 Semantics


Beck, I. L., & M. G. McKeown. (2001). Text Talk: Capturing the benefits of
read-aloud experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55, 10-20.
Gerber, S. (1993). Language-related learning disabilities: Their nature and
treatment. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
44
PRAGMATICS, SPELLING, READING
RESOURCES
 Pragmatics
 Brinton, B. Robinson, L. and Fuiki, M. (2009). Description of a
program for social language intervention: “If you can have a
conversation, you can have a relationship.” Language Speech and
Hearing Services in the Schools, 35, 283-290.
 Spelling and Reading
 Masterson, J.J., & Apel, K. (2007). Spelling and word-level reading.
In A. Kamhi, J.J. Masterson, & K. Apel, (Eds.), Clinical Decision
Making in Developmental Language Disorders (pp.249-266).
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
 Wolter, J.A. (2009). A systematic research review of word study
treatment practices for the speech-language pathologist. EvidenceBased Practice Briefs, 3, 43-58.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
45
READING COMPREHENSION, WRITING
RESOURCES
 Reading Comprehension
Ukrainetz, T.A. & Ross, C. (2006). Text comprehension: Facilitating
active and strategic engagement. In Ukrainetz, T.A.
(Ed.), Contextualized Language Intervention: Scaffolding PreK-12
Literacy Achievement. (pp.503-64). Eau Claire, WI: Thinking
Publications.
Westby, C. (2005). Assessing and remediating text comprehension
problems. In H. Catts & A. Kamhi (Eds.) Language and reading
disabilities – 3 rd Ed. (pp. 157-232). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
 Writing
Singer, B.D., & Bashir, A.S. (2004). EmPOWER: A strategy for
teaching students with language learning disabilities how to write
expository text. In Silliman, E.R. & Wilkinson, L.C. (Eds.), Language
and Literacy Learning in Schools. (pp. 239-272). New York: Guilford
Press.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
46
SPECIFIC NARRATIVE/EXPOSITORY TOOLS
 Narrative-Based Units
 Text Talk (Tier 2 vocab) (Beck & McKeown)
 http:teacher.scholastic.com/products/texttalk/index.htm
 The Magic of Stories: Literature Based Intervention (Strong &
North, 1996)
 Expositor y
 Expanding Expression Tool (Smith)
 http://www.expandingexpression.com/data_research.html
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
47
ONE UTAH RESOURCE
 The Utah State Office Education website has many additional
resources for instruction. Here is one more example.
 Visit this weblink:
 http://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/readingfirst/text_talk.htm
 Read the information about Text Talk.
 At the bottom of this information about Text Talk, there is a
link for: Combined Text Talk Lessons.
 Click on this link. It will take you to a database of Text Talk
Lessons for 101 books.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
48
SCAFFOLDING
AND
PROGRESS
MONITORING
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
49
CONTEXTUALIZED SCAFFOLDING
 Activity has larger purpose than the targeted skill
 Child performs with considerable structural and
interactive support initially
 Increasing mastery of skill and decreased
assistance
 Progress monitoring reflective of scaffolding
EXAMPLE:
Teaching language through literature units
(narrative) and science projects (expository)
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
50
SCAFFOLDING IN THE ZONE
 Zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978)
 Student should be “in the zone” of optimal learning
 What can be achieved with adult scaffolding
 Dynamic assessment: what supports/scaffolds result
in success
• Being therapeutic involves keeping student in their
zone
• Actively involved, with challenge and support, neither
bored nor frustrated
• Right group size and mix
• Right skill, activity, and scaffolding
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
51
ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT (ZPD)
(VYGOTSKY, 1978)
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
52
T YPES OF SCAFFOLDING
 Structural scaffolds
 Features of the context that can be preplanned and purposeful
 Provide predictability and repetition
 Selection of materials, tools, and modifying environmental
conditions
 EXAMPLES:
 Planned whole activities (literature units)
 Routines
 Peer support
(Paul, 2007; Ukrainetz, 2006)
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
53
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
54
•
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language scaffolding learning: Teaching second
language learners in the mainstream class. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
55
Diamond, L. & Gutlohn, L. (2006). The Vocabulary Handbook. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
56
Harvey, S. & Goudvis, A.
(2007). Strategies that
work: Teaching
comprehension for
understanding and
engagement 2nd edition.
Markham, Ontario:
Pembrooke Publishers.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
57
T YPES OF SCAFFOLDS
Interactive scaffolds
Responsive moves on the part of the
clinician to facilitate success
Response scaffolds
Linguistic scaffolds
(Paul, 2007; Ukrainetz, 2006)
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
58
RESPONSE SCAFFOLDS (UKRAINETZ, 2006)
Model the response
Repeat and emphasize
Cue through physical signals
Pause before providing the answer
Provide part of the answer
Provide the answer and have the child
repeat
LINGUISTIC SCAFFOLDS (UKRAINETZ, 2006)
Expand the utterance into a better form
Extend the utterance with new information
Recast into a new form
Focused contrast between two forms
PROGRESS MONITORING
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
61
NATIONAL STANDARDS
Level 4:
Advanced
Level 3:
Proficient
Level 2:
Basic
Level 1:
Below Basic
A student scoring at this level is advanced on measured standards and
objectives of the Core Curriculum in this subject. The student's
performance indicates students can used their knowledge in complex
situations and can analyze, synthesize, and communicate information and
ideas
A student scoring at this level is proficient on the measured standards and
objectives of the Core Curriculum in this subject. The student's
performance indicates sufficient understanding and application of key
curriculum concepts.
A student scoring at this level is basic on the measured standards and
objectives of the Core Curriculum in this subject. The student's
performance indicates that he/she ineffectively uses or requires
assistance to use concepts and skills to acquire, analyze, and
communicate information and ideas.
A student scoring at this level is not yet proficient on measured
standards and objectives of the Core Curriculum in this subject. The
student's performance indicates minimal understanding and
application of key curriculum concepts and requires extensive support
or provide little or no evidence in meeting the standard.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
62
DETERMINE YOUR LEVELS
What is functional?
How is this different than an emerging
performance level?
What scaffolds (structural or interactive)
might I provide?
What strategies might the child use?
How many levels of scaffolding might be
appropriate?
How accurate or how much scaffolding will
determine levels of performance?
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
63
Kovach, T. (2009).
Augmentative and
Alternative
Communication
Profile: A
Continuum of
Learning. East
Moline, IL:
Linguisystems.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
64
RUBRIC SAMPLES
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
65
RUBRIC SAMPLES
Adapted from: Ehren, T.C., & Ehren, B. J. (2007). Legal Mandates: impetus of improving assessment diagnosis, treatment of school-age adolescents with
developmental language disorders. In A. Kamhi, J.J. Masterson, & K. Apel, (Eds.), Clinical Decision Making in Developmental Language Disorders (pp. 55-76).
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
66
Scaffolding in context
“the game”
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
67
RUBRIC EXAMPLE TEMPLATE
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
68
RUBRIC EXAMPLE TEMPLATE
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
69
CASE EXAMPLES
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
70
EXPOSITORY CASE EXAMPLE 1
Middle school student
Physical Science class topic – Chemistry
Clinician presented Library books with 3
different chemistry topics
Student chose “Periodic Table”
Method: Reciprocal Teaching
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
71
EXPOSITORY CASE EXAMPLE 1
Clinician read aloud selected paragraphs
Student identified main idea and details for
each paragraph (accuracy rate is data for goal)
Student and Clinician selected vocabulary
Student defined vocabulary and used in
sentences (accuracy rate is data for goal)
Student chose final project format, created
and presented project
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
72
EXPOSITORY CASE EXAMPLE 1
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
73
EXPOSITORY CASE EXAMPLE 2
Early elementary student
Class discussion topic - pets
Clinician presented 3 books on various pets
Student chose “dogs”
 Method/materials: Expanding Expression Tool
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
74
EXPOSITORY CASE EXAMPLE 2
 Student did “book walk” and Clinician read aloud
sections of book (sections should answer main
questions about topic)
 Student used EET to organize information: group, do,
made of, etc
 Student asked and answered questions about topic
(accuracy rate is data for goal)
 Student assisted in producing final project format
 Student presented final project
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
75
EXPOSITORY CASE EXAMPLE 2
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
76
SINGLE-SKILL NARRATIVE GOALS
1. By 6/07/2012, when par ticipating in a narrative retell,
Andrea will improve narrative discourse, by retelling a stor y
with stor y grammar elements with 80-90% accuracy and low
clinician scaffolding as measured by progress monitoring
rubric.
2. By 6/07/2012, when par ticipating in a narrative retell,
Andrea will use targeted vocabular y with 80-90% accuracy
and low clinician scaffolding as measured by progress
monitoring rubric.
3. By 6/07/2012, when par ticipating in a narrative retell,
Andrea will demonstrate correct past tense verbs with 8090% accuracy and low clinician scaffolding as measured by
progress monitoring rubric.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
77
NARRATIVE EXAMPLE 1
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
78
RUBRIC FOR SINGLE-SKILL
GOALS IN THE GAME
MULTI-SKILL NARRATIVE GOAL
By 06/04/2011, when par ticipating in a stor y retell, Andrea will
improve narrative discourse, by retelling a stor y with stor y
grammar elements, targeted vocabular y, and correct past
tense verbs with 80-90% accuracy and low clinician
scaffolding as measured by progress monitoring rubric.
GAME
narratives
SKILLS
narrative story grammar components
(initiating event, attempt consequence)
vocabulary
past-tense –ed
SCAFFOLDING
retelling 1 story, questioning, reminders,
physical prompts
NARRATIVE EXAMPLE 2
NARRATIVE EXAMPLE 2
HOLISTIC RUBRIC FOR MULTI-SKILL
GOALS IN THE GAME
THE AIM IS THE GAME!
The Game is made of Skills & Scaffolds
Link the Game to Core Standards
through Goals
 Goals Direct the Progress Monitoring
Progress Monitoring is a Reflection of
Scaffolding
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
84
REFERENCES
Beck, I. L., & M. G. McKeown. (2001). Text Talk: Capturing the benefits of readaloud experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55, 10-20.
Berninger, V.W., Vermeulen, K., Abbott, R.D., McCutchen, D., Cotton, S., Cude, J.
, et al., (2003). Comparison of three approaches to supplementary reading
instruction for low-achieving second-grade readers. Language, Speech and
Hearing Ser vices in the Schools, 34, 101-116.
Brinton, B. Robinson, L. and Fujiki, M. (2009). Description of a program for
social language intervention: “If you can have a conversation, you can have a
relationship.” Language Speech and Hearing Ser vices in the Schools, 35, 283-290.
Diamond, L. & Gutlohn, L. (2006). The Vocabulary Handbook. Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.
Ehren, B. J. (2000). Maintaining a therapeutic focus and shared responsibility
for student success: Keys to in-classroom speech-language services.
Language, Speech and Hearing Ser vices in the Schools, 32, 219-229.
Gerber, S. (1993). Language-related learning disabilities: Their nature and
treatment. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
85
REFERENCES
 G ibbo ns , P. ( 2002) . Sc a f fo ld i n g la n g u a g e s c a f fo ld in g le a r n in g : Te a c h in g s e c o n d la n g u a g e
le a r n e r s in th e m a in str e a m c la s s . Po rts mo ut h , NH : H e ine ma n n.
 Gil l am, R. B. et al. ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Improv in g narrat i v e abilit ie s o f c hil dre n wi t h l ang u ag e
di sabi l i t i e s : Who le lang u ag e and lang u ag e sk ills appro ac h es . In M. Fey et al .
( E ds. ) , Commu ic a t i i on in ter ve n t i o n for s c hool- a ge c hid r en ( pp. 1 4 5 - 1 8 2 ) . B al t i mo r e:
Bro o kes.
 Gi l l am, R. B. et al. ( 2 0 0 8 ) . E f fi c ac y o f Fast Fo rWo rd- L a ng u ag e i nter v e nt i o n i n sc ho o lag e c hi l dr e n wit h lang u ag e impairm e nt : A rando miz e d c o nt ro ll ed t ri al . J ou r n a l of
S p eec h La n gu a g e a n d He a r in g Res ea r c h, 51 , 97 - 1 1 9 .
 Gi l l am, R. B. et al. ( 2 0 01 ) . L o o k i ng bac k : A summa r y o f 5 ex pl o rato r y st udies o f Fast
Fo rWo rd. A mer ic a n J ou r n a l of S p eec h La n gu a g e P a t holo gy, 10 , 2 6 9 - 27 3 .
 Gil l am, R. Mc Fadd e n , T. U . , & van K leec k , A . ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Improv ing t he narrat i v e abi l i t i e s i f
c hildren wit h lang u ag e diso rder s : Who le lang uag e and lang u ag e sk i l l s appro ac h e s. In
M. Fey, J . Windso r, & J . Reic hl e ( E ds. ) C o mmunic at io n inter v e nt i o n fo r sc ho o l ag e
c hildren ( pp. 1 4 5 - 1 8 2 ) . Balt imo re: Bro o kes.
 Gil l am, R. B. , & U k rain et z , T. A . ( 2 0 0 6 ) . L ang u ag e inter v e nt io n t ho ug h l i terat ur e - b a s ed
uni t s. In U k rainet z , T. A . ( E d. ) , Con tex t u a l i ze d La n gu a ge I n ter ve n t i o n : S c a f fol d in g P r e K 1 2 Liter a c y A c hieveme n t . ( pp. 5 9 - 9 4 ) . E au C laire, WI: T hink i ng P ubl i c at i o n s
 Har vey, S . & Go udv is, A . ( 2 0 07 ) . S t r a tegies t ha t w or k: Tea c hin g c omp r e h e n s i o n for
u n d er s t a n d in g a n d en ga gem en t 2 n d ed it ion . Mrk ha m, Ont ario : Pembro o k e P ubl i she r s .
 H o g g an, K . C . , & S t ro ng , C . J . ( 1 9 9 4 ) . T he mag ic o f o nc e upo n a t i me: N arrat i v e
86
teac hin g st rateg i e s. La n gu a ge S p eec h a n d Hea r in g S er v ic es in t he S c hools , 2 5 , 76 - 8 9 .
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
REFERENCES
 Kovac h, T. ( 2 0 0 9 ) . A ug ment at i v e and A ltern at i v e C o mmunic at i o n P ro fi l e: A
C o nt inuum o f L earn i ng . E ast Mo line, IL : L i ng ui sy st e m s.
 Marza no , R. J . , & P ic keri ng , D . J . ( 2 0 0 5 ) . Bu ild in g a c a d emic voc a b u la r y: Tea c her s
ma n u a l. A lex and ri a , VA : A sso c iat io n fo r S uper v is io n and C urric ul um .
 Master so n, J . J . , & A pel, K . ( 2 0 07 ) . S pelling and wo rd- lev e l readi ng . In A . Kamhi , J . J .
 Master so n, & K . A pel, ( E ds. ) , Clin ic a l D ec is io n Ma kin g in D evelop m en t a l La n gu a ge
D is or d er s ( pp. 24 9 - 2 6 6 ) . Balt imo re , MD : Bro o kes.
 Paul , Rhea. ( 2 0 07 ) . La n gu a g e d is or d er s fr om in fa n c y t hr ou gh a d ole s c e n c e :
A s s e s s me n t a n d in te r ve n t i o n . ( 3 rd ed. ) . S t L o uis: Mo sby.
 R eadanc e, J . , Moore, D . , & R i c k el m an, R . (2000). P rereadi ng ac t i v i t i es f or
c ont ent area readi ng and l earni ng. N ewark , D el awa re : Int ern at i on al R eadi ng
A s s oc i at i on.
 Ro dg er s. A . & Ro dg er s, E . M. ( 2 0 0 4 ) . S c a f fold i n g liter a c y in s t r u c t io n : S t r a tegi es for
K - 4 c la s s r oo ms . Po r t smo ut h, N H: Hei ne m a n n.
 S i ng er, B . D . , & Bashi r, A . S . ( 2 0 0 4 ) . E mP OWE R: A st rateg y fo r teac hi n g st udent s wi t h
l ang uag e learni ng disabilit i e s how to write ex po sito r y tex t . In S i l l i ma n, E . R. &
W i l k i nso n, L . C . ( E ds. ) , La n gu a ge a n d Liter a c y Lea r n in g in S c hools . ( pp. 2 3 9 - 27 2 ) .
N ew Yo rk : Guilfo rd P ress.
 Strong, C. J., & Hogan North, K.C. (1996). The magic of stories: Literature-based language
intervention. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.
 Torgesen, J.K. et al. (2001). Intensive remediation instruct for children with severe RD.
Journal Learning Disabilities, 34, 33-58.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
87
REFERENCES




Ukrainetz, T.A. (2006). Contextualized Language Intervention: Scaffolding
PreK-12 Literacy Achievement. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.
Ukrainetz, T.A. (2006). Teaching narrative structure: coherence, cohesion, and
captivation. In Ukrainetz, T.A. (Ed.), Contextualized Language Intervention:
Scaffolding PreK-12 Literacy Achievement. (pp.195-246). Eau Claire, WI:
Thinking Publications.
Ukrainetz, T.A. & Fresquez, E. F. (2003). What isn’t language: A qualitative
study of the role of the speech lanaguage pathologist. Language Speech and
Hearing Services in the Schools, 34, 284-298.
Ukrainetz, T.A. & Ross, C. (2006). Text comprehension: Facilitating active and
strategic engagement. In Ukrainetz, T.A. (Ed.), Contextualized Language
Intervention: Scaffolding PreK-12 Literacy Achievement. (pp.503-64). Eau
Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.
 Ukrainetz, T.A. (1998). Beyond Vygotsky: What Soviet activity theory
offers naturalistic language intervention. Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology and Audiology, 22, 122-133.
 Ukrainetz, T.A. (2006). Contextualized Language Intervention:
Scaffolding PreK–12 Literacy Achievement. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
•
Wallach, G. and Miller, L. (1988). Language intervention and academic
success. Boston, MA: College-Hill Publications.
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
88
REFERENCES
 West by, C . ( 2 0 0 5 ) . A ssess i ng and remedi a t i ng tex t c o mpreh e n si o n pro bl ems . In H . W.
C at t s & A . G. Kamhi ( E ds. ) , La n gu a ge a n d r ea d in g d is a b il it i es ( pp. 1 57 - 2 31 ) .
B o sto n, A l l y n & Bac o n.
 West by, C . ( 1 9 9 8 ) . C o mmunic at iv e refine m e nt in sc ho o l- ag e and ado l esc e nc e. In W.
H ayes & B S huma n ( E ds. ) . Commu n ic a t i on d evelop me n t : Fou n d a t i on s , p r oc e s s e s , a n d
c lin ic a l imp lic a t i on s ( pp. 31 1 - 3 6 0 ) . Balt imo r e, MD : Williams & Wi l k i ns.
 West by C . ( 1 9 91 ) . L earni n g to t alk - t alk i ng to learn: Oral – literat e l ang ua g e di f fer e nc e s.
In C . S . S i mo n ( E d. ) . Commu n ic a t i on s kills a n d c la s s r oo m s u c c es s : A s s e s s me n t a n d
t h e r a py met hod o l o g ies for la n gu a g e- a n d lea r n i n g d is a b led s t u d en t s ( Tabl e 1 3 - 1 , p.
3 37 ) . E au C laire, WI: T hink in g P ublic at io n s.
 W hi t mi re, K . ( 2 0 0 2 ) . T he evo lut io n o f sc ho o l- b as e d speec h- l a n g u a g e ser v i c e s.
Commu n ic a t i o n D is or d er s Qu a r ter ly, 2 3 , 6 8 - 76 .
 Wo lter, J . A . ( 2 0 0 9 ) . A sy stemat i c resear c h rev i ew o f wo rd st udy t reat me nt prac t i c e s fo r
t he speec h- l a n g u a g e pat ho lo g i st . E v id en c e- Ba s ed P r a c t ic e Br ief s , 3 , 4 3 - 5 8 .
 Wo lter, J . A . ( 2 0 07 ) . Mo rpho lo g ic a l awar e n e s s inter v e nt io n: C o nsi der at i o ns fo r
ev i denc e- b as e d prac t ic e. P er s p ec t ives on La n gu a g e Lea r n in g a n d E d u c a t ion , 14 ( 1 ) , 6 8.
 Wo lter, J . A . ( 2 0 0 5 ) . S umma r y o f spec ial intere st div isio n 1 st udent resear c h g rant : A
mul t i pl e l i ng uist ic appro ac h to literac y remedi a t io n. P er s p ec t ives on La n gu a ge Lea r n in g
a n d E d u c a t io n , 1 2 ( 3 ) , 2 2 - 2 5 .
Wolter, Ukrainetz, Ross & Andrus (2011)
89