Evidence To Practice:
School--Based
New Findings from School
Language Intervention Research
Laura Justice, Joan Kaderavek,
Sandi Gillam, Diane Frome Loeb,
Debora Daniels, & Julie Masterson
November 15, 2007
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Annual Convention
Boston MA
Welcome and Overview
L Justice
Current *hot* issues in educational practice:
Evidence-based practice
Research-to-practice gaps
Accountability
Scalability
Presenters on New Findings in School-Based
Language and Literacy Interventions
Diane Loeb & Debora Daniels
Sandi Gillam
Joan Kaderavek & Laura Justice
Julie Masterson
LiteracyLiteracy-Based Language Intervention with AtAtrisk Native American and
AtAt-risk Hispanic American
SchoolSchool-Age Children
Diane Frome Loeb & Debora Burns Daniels
Intercampus Program of Communicative Disorders
The University of Kansas
Funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education
Download powerpoint presentation at www2.ku.edu/~splh/Faculty/LoebBio.html
Purpose of the Study
To determine if a culturally relevant literacy-based language
intervention facilitated the language skills of at-risk Native
American and Hispanic American children.
In this presentation, we focus on
word learning.
Download powerpoint presentation at www2.ku.edu/~splh/Faculty/LoebBio.html
At-Risk
We defined at-risk as low socioeconomic status.
This was determined by recruiting children who received
free or reduced lunch at their schools.
Previous Research about Language Skills of
Children from Low SES homes
Children from homes at or below the poverty level
test lower on both IQ and language tests compared to same age
peers who are from higher socioeconomic levels (Fazio, Naremore,
& Connell, 1996).
at risk for language and behavior disorders (Qi & Kaiser (2004).
Previous Research about Vocabulary Skills
of Children from Low SES homes
Children who are disadvantaged are less likely to have strong
vocabulary skills (Moats, 2001).
First graders from high SES homes have over twice as many
vocabulary words than those from lower SES homes (Graves,
Brunetti, & Slater, 1982).
Previous Research about Vocabulary Learning
from Reading Aloud
Children learn words incidentally
when someone reads to them aloud
(Elley, 1989).
Children with lower abilities do not
learn words as readily compared to
children with higher abilities when
read to aloud (Penno, Wilkinson, &
Moore, 2002).
Previous Research about Vocabulary Learning
from Reading Aloud
At-risk kindergartners learn new words from stories read aloud
with elaboration (Justice, Meier, & Walpole, 2005).
Kindergarten and first graders learn words when provided with
rich and focused instruction during read alouds (Beck &
McKeown, 2007)
82% were low SES and all children were African American
Research Question
Do children learn more target words than control words
using the culturally relevant literacy-based language
intervention?
Participants- Inclusion Criteria
At-risk
Free or reduced school lunch
Native American
Hispanic American or Latino
Could display specific language impairment
K-Bit (between 70-130)
Pass Hearing Screening
Participants
40 Hispanic American children between 6-9 years of age were identified
for participation
19 Native American children between 6-9 years of age were identified
for participation
Children were randomly assigned to one of two conditions:
Immediate intervention (June)
Delayed intervention (July)
Native American Participants
(N= 12)
Age
Gender
Maternal Ed.
K-Bit
CELF-4
June
(n=6)
7;3
3M
3F
HS= 3
SColl=1
Assoc=1
No data=1
84.6
91.3
July
(n=6)
7;0
2M
4F
HS= 2
SColl=1
Assoc=3
89.8
88.0
June vs July Groups Mean K-Bit Standard Scores and
Mean CELF-4 Standard Scores did not differ significantly
Hispanic American Participants
(N= 30)
Age
Gender
Maternal Ed.
K-Bit
CELF-4
June
(n=14)
7;2
M= 11
F= 3
< HS= 10
HS= 2
No data= 2
86.6
64.2
July
(n=16)
7;4
M= 12
F= 4
< HS= 9
HS= 4
Assoc= 1
No data= 2
89.4
60.7
June vs July Groups Mean K-Bit Standard Scores and
Mean CELF-4 Standard Scores did not differ significantly
Premise for a Culturally Relevant
Intervention
The cultural context of a child is interwoven with his or her
language development (Battles & Anderson, 2001).
Culturally Relevant Intervention
Most language intervention programs have been developed within the context of the
mainstream culture.
Most SLPs are from the mainstream culture and have been trained at mainstream
institutions.
Facilitating language with children who are from different cultures will require
SLPs who are culturally sensitive and competent AND
Intervention that modifies the amount, type and situations under which facilitative
language models are provided to be consistent with the cultural norms of the child and
family.
Intervention and Culture Mismatch
Applying an intervention approach that is more appropriate for a child from the
mainstream culture to a child from a different culture can result in dire
consequences.
For example, current early language intervention programs emphasize the value
of talk and promote verbal behavior over that of nonverbal behavior in
children.
However, many Native Americans value silence and view it as a sign of respect,
rather than reticence (Robinson-Zanartu, 2000; Roseberry-McKibbin, 2002;
Westby & Vining, 2002).
Story book reading with stories about children’s tribes may be a
successful way to facilitate language in Native American children with
hearing impairments (Inglebret, E., Bear Eagle, D., CHiXapKaid (Pavel,
D.M.), 2007).
Elements of our Culturally Relevant LiteracyBased Language Intervention
Repeated Storybook Reading with
Narrative, Vocabulary, and Phonological Awareness targeted
from story
(based on Gillam et al., in press)
Culturally related stories
Culturally pertinent materials
Culturally sensitive techniques consist with cultures values and
beliefs.
Native American Books
Hispanic American Books
Intervention
Summer intervention
20 sessions
4 weeks in duration
5 days per week
2 hours and 30 minutes a day
Teacher and SLP administered the intervention to a classroom of children
4 treatment groups & 4 teaching/slp groups
Random assignment to group
Hispanic American (June)
Native American (June)
Hispanic American (July)
Native American (July)
Intervention
Teachers and SLPs training
2 group workshops (4 hours each)
Article Reading
DVD of procedure (viewed pre-intervention and mid-intervention)
Topics of training
Cultural considerations
Collaboration
Administering the intervention
Language facilitation
Stress
Focused stimulation
Observe, Wait, Listen, & Expand (modified from the OWL procedure used in
Hanen Programs- Weitzman & Greenberg, 2002)
Culturally Relevant Intervention
Story books were read one time for 5 days
3 vocabulary words were selected from each
book
Teachers & SLPs provided stress, focused
stimulation, and OWLE (Observe, Wait,
Listen, Expand) technique for target words.
Culturally Relevant Intervention
Vocabulary activities included:
Hearing words during story reading
One day focus for each target word
Modified Text Talk procedure (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002)
2 semantic activities for each word (1/2 hour per activity)
All 3 words on 4th day
“Child’s choice” review day on 5th day
Results
Word Learning Measures
1.
Receptive Pre- and Post-test for Target Words and
Control Words
2.
Expressive Pre- and Post-test for Target Words and
Control Words
Receptive Vocabulary Results
Native American Children
Target Words Control Words
Significance & Effect
Size
June
3.33
1.67
p = .10
July
4.50
.83
p = .007
d = 1.67
Mean Number of Words Gained from Pre- to Post-test
Range of Receptive Word Learning: Native
American Children
Number of Children
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Words learned
6
7
8
9
Expressive Vocabulary Results
Native American Children
Target Words Control Words
Significance & Effect
Size
June
4.50
.50
p = .027
d = 1.64
July
2.67
.67
p = .041
d = 1.46
Mean Number of Words Gained from Pre- to Post-test
Range of Expressive Word Learning: Native
American Children
Number of Children
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Words learned
6
7
8
9
Receptive Vocabulary Results
Hispanic American Children
Target Words Control Words
Significance & Effect
Size
June
3.93
1.64
p = .001
d = 1.48
July
4.31
1.75
p = .000
d = 1.97
Mean Number of Words Gained from Pre- to Post-test
Number of Children
Range of Receptive Word Learning:
Hispanic American Children
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Words learned
6
7
8
9
Expressive Vocabulary Results
Hispanic American Children
Target Words Control Words
Significance & Effect
Size
June
2.57
.21
p = .000
d = 1.74
July
2.06
.19
p = .005
d = 1.97
Mean Number of Words Gained from Pre- to Post-test
Number of Children
Range of Expressive Word Learning:
Hispanic American Children
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Words learned
6
7
8
9
Summary
Rich instruction in the literacy-based language intervention
was an effective method for helping at-risk children who
were Native American and at-risk children who were
Hispanic American learn new vocabulary words.
Developing a culturally relevant literacybased language intervention
Become knowledgeable about the culture’s values and beliefs
Based on these consider similarities and differences from the
mainstream culture
Consider what you do in intervention that may be a mismatch
for a person from a culture different than yours
Find a person from the culture who can provide feedback to
you
Selecting a culturally relevant book
Picture book
Libraries
Online multicultural sites
Online searches
10 minutes read aloud
Story grammar structure
Colorful pictures and interesting pictures
Contained many familiar words
Contained some tier 2 words (Beck et al., 2002)
Positive cultural role models and themes
Approved by cultural consultant
Selecting Target Words
Read book and generate list of Tier 2 words
Tier 2 words
Frequently occurring
Not likely known to child
Could develop activities with word
3 words per book
Recommended by Beck et al. (2002)
First Strawberries
Word Learning Schedule
3 words: Quarrel, strawberry, respect
One word a day was targeted
Day 1- strawberry
Day 2- quarrel
Day 3- respect
Day 4- all words
Day 5- review day
First Strawberries
After reading the book- introduce the new word by saying:
“There are 3 words that we are going to learn a lot about. Today we’re going to talk
about the word “strawberry”
Contextualize the word: “In our story, the strawberry is very special. It is the
one berry that attracts the woman’s attention and makes her stop walking. (Show
the children pages 19 & 20)
Repeat the word: Say the word with me, strawberries.
First Strawberries
Explain the meaning of the word (Child-friendly definition) : A strawberry is a red fruit. It
has a green stem. It is one type of berry. Strawberries grow on plants. (Show the children some
strawberries)
Explain the word in a context other than the one in the story: I usually get strawberries
at the grocery store. It is in the produce aisle, where there are other fruits and vegetables.
Children provide their own examples: Have you ever gone to the grocery store with
someone in your family? When you have gone, have you seen any strawberries? Tell me about
it. Who did you go with? What did the strawberries look like? Did you buy any? Have you ever
eaten a strawberry or something made with strawberry flavoring? Tell me about it.
Have the children repeat the word again: “What’s the word we are talking about? Say,
“strawberry.”
Additional Vocabulary Activities
Enter Picture and Definition Label in the New Word Book
2 activities for each word
1 similar to the book context
1 removed from the book context
Day 4 All Word activities
Day 5 Review Day
Semantic Activity Context Related
Example
Use Focused Stimulation
Materials: Fresh Strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, and blackberries.
Instructions: Describe again the context of the story and show the picture in the book
when the Sun sends strawberries to attract the woman’s attention (page 19-20).
“Strawberries can be eaten all by themselves, like the woman in the book” (Show page 22).
Give the children each a strawberry to eat. Allow each to have one. Encourage them to
explain the texture, the shape, the color, the size, and taste.
Next, compare and contrast the different types of berries to the strawberry.
“ There were other berries in the story. Do you remember what kinds? How are these berries
different from strawberries? Give each child a blueberry, raspberry, and blackberry. Let
them describe them and taste them.
Semantic Activity Example (continued)
How are the berries different?
They are different shapes.
They are different colors.
They have different seeds.
What are the differences in the way that the berries in the story grow?
How are the berries the same?
They are all fruits.
They all taste sweet.
They all start with a flower/blossom.
They all need to be pollinated by bees.
Be sure to use focused stimulation as much as possible.
Semantic Activity 2
Context Unrelated
Use Focused Stimulation
Materials: Match the strawberry cards, large sheet of paper with all the pictures of
strawberries on it.
Instructions:
Each table with have a large sheet of paper with pictures of different kinds of strawberries.
Children take turns drawing a card that has a picture of a strawberry. The child does not
show the picture to anyone (except maybe the teacher) and they describe what the picture
looks like.
The other children take turns trying to guess which picture the child has. When the picture
is guessed correctly, the child puts their picture card on the large sheet of paper.
The object of the activity is for the children to work together to cover all the pictures on
the large sheet of paper with the picture cards that the children draw.
All Words Activity Example
All 3 words: Strawberries, quarrel, respect
Use Focused Stimulation
Materials: Large suns spread out on floor
Instructions:
“We’re going to play a game to help us remember our 3 words. Pick up
a large sun. “
The teacher reads what is on the sun. Ask the child which of our words
it goes with- strawberries, quarrel or respect. If the child is correct,
they can keep the sun during the game. When you are all done, you
can make a pattern with the suns on the floor.
During this activity, models the words many times in sentences and use
the vocabulary words to describe their pictures.
Delivery Options
This approach to facilitating word learning could be used in a
variety of delivery settings
Classroom-based
Individual (outside the classroom)
Group (outside of the classroom)
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
Kickapoo
Site Coordinator & Cultural Consultant
Kathy Redbird
Cultural Consultants
Gracie Seetot & Howard Allen
Statistical Analyses
Janet Marquis
Dave Topp
Emily Ledford
Topeka
Site Coordinator & Cultural Consultant
Veronica Fierro
Recruitment and Testing Coordinator
Jayne Brandel
Research Assistants
Betsy Copeland
Meaghan Goodman
Valerie Jackson
Dayna Jones
Grace McConnell
April Merino-Brammel
Austin Oder
Kelly Turner
Shang-Yu Wu
Kellie Wright
Acknowledgements
Kickapoo Nation School
Donald Barta
Mary Livingston
Intervention Staff
Meaghan Goodman
Mandy Graham
Dayna Jones
Ken Komiya
Janet McAsey
Jancy Stelly
Le Tran
Lisa Valente
501 Topeka Public Schools
Jan Jacka
Intervention Staff
Laura Carr
Riaz Castillo
Amy Gugelman
Juliane Hawking
Miriam Lind
Jocelyn Lucas
Mariza Rosales
Carol Thomas
References
Battle, D.E., & Anderson, N. (1998). Culturally diverse families and the development of
language. In D. Battle (Ed.), Communication disorders in multicultural populations (2nd Ed.), pgs
213-245. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M.G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral
vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal,
107 (3), xxx-xxx.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G.; & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Inglebret, E., Bear Eagle, D., CHiXapKaid (Pavel, D.M.) (2007). American Indian
stories enrich intervention. ASHA Leader,12 (1), 1-2.
Justice, L.M., Meier, J., Walpole, S. ( 2005). Learning new words from storybooks:
An efficacy study with at-risk kindergartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
the Schools, 36, 17-32.
Moats, L. (2001). Overcoming the language gap. American Educator, 25 (5), 94-99.
Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition
from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: Do they overcome the
Matthew effect? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 23–33.
Qi, C.H., & Kaiser, A.P. (2004). Problem behaviors of low-income children with
language delays: An observation study. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 47, 595-609.
Robinson-Zanartu, C. (2000). Serving Native American children and families:
Considering cultural variables. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 27,
373-383.
Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2002). Multicultural students with special language needs.
Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication Associates, Inc.
Weitzman, E., & Greenberg, J. (2002). Learning language and loving it! (2nd Ed.).
Toronto: Hanen Centre.
Westby, C., & Vining, C.B. (2002). Living in harmony: Providing services to Native
American children and families. In D. Battle (Ed.), Communication disorders in
multicultural populations (3rd Ed.), pgs 135-178. Boston, MA: ButterworthHeinemann.
Bellon, M.L., & Ogletree, B.T. (2000). Repeated storybook reading as an instructional
method. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36 (2), 75-81.
Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research
Quarterly, 24, 174–186.
Fazio, B.B., Naremore, R.C., & Connell, P.J. (1996). Tracking children from poverty at
risk for specific language impairment: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 39, 611-624.
Gillam, R.B., Loeb, D.F., Friel-Patti, S., Hoffman, L., Brandel, J., Champlin, C.,
Thibodeau, L., Widen, J., Bohman, T., & Clarke, W. (In press). The efficacy of Fast
ForWord-Language intervention in school-age children with language impairment: A
randomized clinical trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Reasearch.
Graves, M.F., Brunetti, G.J., & Slater, W.H. (1982). The reading vocabularies of primarygrade children of varying geographic and social backgrounds. In J.A. Harris & L.A. Harris
(Eds.), New inquiries in reading research and instruction (pp.99-104). Rochester, NY: National
Reading Conference.
Thank You!
Funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, Department of
Education
To download the powerpoint presentation please go to
www2.ku.edu/~splh/Faculty/LoebBio.html
A Comparison of Intervention Approaches
for Improving Language and Narrative
Abilities in Low income Children with
Language Impairments
Sandi Gillam
Utah State University
Kellie Reece
Billingsley School, Billingsley, Alabama
Ron Gillam
Utah State University
Purpose
Do low-income school-age children with language
impairments perform better on measures of language
and narration after participating in literature based
language intervention (LBLI) or a set of commercially
packaged language cards/games (no-glamour; NGL)?
Participants
Primary grade children (1rst & 2nd grades)
18 children with language impairments were randomly assigned to 1 of 2
treatment groups
9 children with language impairments served as control and did not receive either
treatment
Language Based Literacy Intervention (LBLI)
• 9 children
• Mean age
• 7.6
• 6 male, 3 female
No Glamour published by Linguisystems
(NGL)
• 9 children
• Mean age
• 7.8
• 4 male, 6 female
Control
• 9 children
• Mean age
• 7.8
• 5 male, 4 female
Procedures
Children assigned to intervention received treatment for 1 hour, 3
times per week, in groups of 3, for a total of 6 weeks
Intervention was provided by a certified speech language pathologist or
graduate students in speech language pathology under the direct
supervision of a certified speech language pathologist
Pre- and post- assessments were conducted by evaluators blind
to group assignment
Measures included subtests of the Clinical Evaluation of Language
Fundamentals (CELF-4) and the Test of Narrative Language (TNL).
Intervention Procedures
LBLI
Structured around children’s literature
Incorporated oral and written contexts
Intervention Targets:
general and story vocabulary
grammatical morphology & syntax
phonological awareness
narration
Targets embedded in themes & authentic literacy contexts
Weeks 1 and 2: activities centered on animals who disliked
bedtime
Goodnight Dinosaur & Bedtime for Zachary
Weeks 3, 4, 5: activities centered on animals who liked to
party
Dinosaur Stomp, If you give a pig a party
Week 6: activities designed to facilitate comparisons
between books on several aspects
Comparisons between books on the basis of:
Character
Physical attributes, personalities
Actions
What actions were taken by characters?
What were the results of the actions?
Beginning, middle, endings
Similarities and differences
Theme
Bedtime
Parties
Session activities
Pre-story preparation
Supported story generation, co-telling, re-telling, story discussion
Word review
Reading stories
Phonological awareness
Story grammar element identification
Parallel stories (oral and written)
NGL
Commercially packaged games and situational
question cards designed to improve social language,
vocabulary and general language skills
(Linguisystems, 2005).
NGL
Children played each game or answered questions read from
each of 3 card sets for a total of 15 minutes for each game or
set.
Care was taken to ensure each child had an equal number of
turns.
No-glamour Grammar
The cards are divided into nouns/pronouns, verbs, modifiers, and
sentences (subjects, predicates, conjunctions, negatives, and
questions).
The object is to be the first player to collect 2 cards in each
category (for a total of 8 cards).
Social situations cards
The cards offer realistic illustrations of social
situations grouped into the following categories: in
school, eating, emotions, self-control, getting along,
conversations, being responsible, solving problems,
and role playing.
No glamour vocabulary
The card sets contain the following categories:
functions, categories, attributes, associations,
comparisons, compound words, synonyms,
antonyms, multiple-meaning words, and
absurdities.
No-glamour language cards
Card sets include sections for asking & answering
questions, exclusion, negatives, listening,
semantics, grammar, making inferences,
comparing & contrasting, paraphrasing, retelling,
social communication and problem solving.
Results
ANCOVA
Dependent Variable - TNL Index Score
Covariate - TNL pre-test score
Group main effect
[F (2, 26) = 3.117, p = .06]
Effect Size
LBLI: 1.18
NGL: 0.46
Test of Narrative Language
Effect Size and 95% Confidence Intervals
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
LBLI
NGL
Group
ANCOVA
Dependent Variable - TNL Narrative Comprehension Score
Covariate - TNL pre-test score
Group main effect
[F (2, 26) = 3.441, p = .049]
Effect Size
LBLI: 1.24
NGL: 0.53
TNL Narrative Comprehension
Effect Size and 95% Confidence
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
NGL
LBLI
Group
ANCOVA
Dependent Variable - TNL Oral Narration Score
Covariate - TNL pre-test score
Group main effect
[F (2, 26) = .71, p = .50]
Effect Size
LBLI: .53
NGL: 0.09
TNL Oral Narration
Effect Size and 95%
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
Group
ANCOVA
Dependent Variable - CELF-4 formulated sentences (FS)
Covariate - CELF-4 FS pre-test score
Group main effect
[F (2, 26) = .3.97, p = .03]
Effect Size
LBLI: 1.61
NGL: .62
Formulated Sentences
Effect Size and 95% Confidence
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
LBLI
NGL
Group
ANCOVA
Dependent Variable - CELF-4 recalling sentences (RS)
Covariate - CELF-4 RS pre-test score
Group main effect
[F (2, 26) = 11.7, p = .0001]
Effect Size
LBLI: 1.94
NGL: .97
Recalling Sentences
Effect Size and 95% Confidence Intervals
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
LBLI
NGL
Group
Clinical Implications
Literacy based language intervention was extremely
beneficial.
Children demonstrated large changes on the CELF4 subtests after just six weeks of language therapy.
Clinical implications
Group intervention was highly beneficial.
Intervention in groups of 3 or 4 children was highly
effective as demonstrated by treatment and control
group effect size comparisons.
Clinical implications
LBLI resulted in large gains in narrative comprehension that were
57% higher than NGL.
Gains in narrative production were not reliable.
More explicit instruction in story structure may be required to
affect significant changes in narrative skills.
Spelling and Word-Level
Reading Skills
Collaborations in
Grades 3-6
Julie J. Masterson
Missouri State University
ASHA, 2007
Beginning of Research Line
Previously studied cognitive abilities in LLD and
phonological disorders
Nice extrapolation to an under-studied area…
Spelling… Allows a “peek” at word-level
knowledge
Spelling is important
Recent articles in popular press indicate that up to 75% of
potential employers are “put off” by applicant’s poor
spelling
Spelling Tied to Reading
Highly correlated (.68-.86), although less for non-typically developing students
Both into similar knowledge sources, follow similar developmental patterns
Both require some direct instruction for most children
Preliminary evidence that spelling instruction improves reading skills
Spelling is the more “stringent” measure of the literacy-related skills. It requires attention
to conventional form, not just a plausible spelling.
Phoneme-Grapheme rules more ambiguous than Grapheme-Phoneme rules (Bain, 1999)
/f/ -> “f” “ff” “gh” “ph”
“f” -> /f/
Spelling itself codes important semantic information…..
Influential Factors
Cognitive Abilities
Phonological (Phonemic) Awareness
Orthographic Knowledge (Phonics)
Ability to Store Complete Mental Orthographic Images
Semantic Knowledge
Morphological Awareness
Instructional Methods
Limits of Common Instructional
Methods
Emphasis on Memorization
Organized thematically
Word study
Attention drawn to orthographic pattern, morphological
characteristics
No systematic attempts to consistently tie to reading and writing
across the curriculum
Other Issues
Reaction to misspellings
Cursive Writing
Working Model
Assess
Collect sufficient sample
Identify orthographic patterns in error (misspellings)
Determine underlying cause
Phonological awareness
Orthographic knowledge
Semantic Knowledge
Morphological Knowledge
Sufficiency of MOI
Instruct
Only on patterns in error
Focus on specific cause for each pattern
Evaluate effects of instruction
Preliminary Studies
Masterson & Crede (1999)
Described use of multi-linguistic perspective and piloted
tailored intervention with 4th grader
Masterson & Apel (2000)
Description of model and decision flow-chart
Apel & Masterson (2001)
Further refined multi-linguistic perspective and “broad brush”
intervention with a 13-year-old with LLD
Decision Flowchart
Is sound represented by at least one letter?
Yes
No—PA Segmentation
Does sound associated with the spelling
approximate the target sound?
Yes
No—PA Discrimination
Is the spelling “legal”?
Yes- MOI
No—OK; Consider orthotactic cues
Software Solution
Analyzes 62 Orthographic Targets
Determines Errors
Identifies Nature of Errors
Recommends Instruction
Spelling Performance
Evaluation for Language and
Literacy-2 (SPELL-2)
Masterson, Apel & Wasowicz 2007
Disclosure: The presenter is a co-author of SPELL -2 and consequently has a financial
interest in the product.
Next Steps
Wasowicz, Apel, & Masterson (2004)
Instructional curriculum directly aligned with SPELL and model
Masterson & Apel (2006)
Documented validity of keyboarded spellings
Disclosure: The presenter is a co-author of SPELL-Links and
consequently has a financial interest in the product
.
Pilot Intervention Study
(ASHA Convention, Fall, 2005)
Ss= 5th graders failing NCLB criteria from SPS, Nixa
Delayed Treatment Design
Paired, then Random Assignment
Treatment
SPELL-Links Orthographic Instruction
10 weeks; 20 50-min sessions
TWS SS (Age-Based)
TWS (Age SS)
87.00
86.00
85.00
84.00
83.00
82.00
SS
Pre
Post
81.00
80.00
79.00
78.00
77.00
76.00
Treat (d = .14)
Control (d = -.02)
Word Attack (Grade SS)
Word Attack
96.00
95.00
94.00
93.00
SS
92.00
WA Pre
91.00
WA Post
90.00
89.00
88.00
87.00
86.00
Treat (d = .66)
Control (d = .07)
Word Identification
Word ID
100.00
98.00
96.00
94.00
SS
WI Pre
WI Post
92.00
90.00
88.00
86.00
Treat (d = .24)
Control (d = -.00)
Classroom-Based Models
2005-present
Baseline Terra Nova
Original Design
Independent Variable
Experimental Word Study/No EWS
Dependent Measures
Yearly Terra Nova Percentiles in Reading and Spelling (Mean/Median)
WDRB Raw Scores
TWS-4 Raw Scores
Within Subjects Component
Scores before and after EWS
Between-Subjects Component
Scores of Each Grade Before EWS, After EWS
Year 1 (05-06)
Participants include K-7 students MSU Lab School, G2 @ Title 1 Public School
Baseline measures (April, 2005)
WDRD: Formal tests of decoding and word identification
TWS-4: Spelling
Terra Nova (Fall administration)
Word study instruction administered 2 times/week for 3 groups (Grades 2-7)
or entire class (K-1)
Instruction taken from SPELL-Links
Encouraged carry-over activities in reading, writing
Year 2 (06-07)
Participants include K-6 students MSU Lab School
Testing (Year 1 results; Year 2 baseline)
WDRB: Formal tests of decoding and word identification
TWS: Spelling
Terra Nova (Fall administration)
Word study instruction administered by teacher in classroom, Grades 3-6
Instruction taken from PPTs based on SPELL-Links
Research assistant prepared related activities in reading, writing
Research assistant provided supplementary small group lessons for students needing
“catch up” work
Year 2: Added “Cold Writing” component, consisting of 3 writing probes across
school year
Disclosure: The presenter is a co-author of SPELL-Links and
consequently has a financial interest in the product
.
Lesson 33
Long Vowel ‘o’ Sound - Digraphs
Supplemental Reading Activity
The student will be given several pages from a book at the 4th
grade reading level. The student will read the pages and
mark words containing the vocalic ‘r’. Each different
spelling of the ‘er’ sound can be marked in a different color
or with a different shape.
Book used: The Whipping Boy by Sid Fleischman.
Illustrated by Peter Sis.
Supplemental Writing Activity
Provide the student with the following paragraph and ask him or her
to read it and check for spelling errors. When an error is found, the
student should correct it. NOTE: All vocalic ‘r’ sounds are
underlined in the sample below, but the underlining should be
removed before the student receives it.
On the furst day of May, Sally and Simone wir hard at work.
The gurls’ were making a card for Mom. Hear birthday was
tomorrow! Sally drew a picture of the wirld and wrote ‘I
love you more than anything in the world!’ Aftur Sally was
done, Simone torned the card over and wrote ‘Made by Sally
and Simone’. The next morning, they gave Mom the card
dearing breakfast. She loved it!
Spelling Results
Baseline Data on Terra Nova
2000-04 Grade Averages
First Cohort
Third Cohort
Second Cohort
Fourth Cohort
Fifth Cohort
Cold Writing Samples
Authentic Indicator
Suggested by Teachers
Gr 3
Segments
Sample
Aug
Dec
Apr
Ortho
Ortho
ErrorError
Vis
1.9%
0.4%
1.6%
0.3%
1.2%
0.3%
Total Deleted
0.7%
481.3
314.4
0.6%
0.8%
324.8
Gr 4
Sample
Aug
Dec
Apr
Total
295.1
470.4
613.0
Ortho
Deleted Error
0.6%
1.7%
0.6%
0.9%
0.7%
0.4%
Ortho
ErrorVis
0.6%
0.1%
0.1%
Words
MOI
Error
1.7%
0.6%
0.5%
Correct
95.4%
98.0%
98.3%
Total
84.4
137.7
175.6
Phon
Error
2.5%
1.9%
2.0%
Ortho
Error
6.0%
2.4%
1.3%
Segments
Total
444.1
603.3
563.5
Deleted
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
Gr 6
Sample
Aug
Dec
Apr
Phon
Ortho Ortho
Word
Multix segs/
MOI
Error
Error Legal Honym Apost
Correct morph
word
Error Correct Total
1.5% 95.5% 162.2
1.9% 5.3% 2.6%
0.7%
0.2% 89.3% 11.6%
3.0
1.6% 95.9% 103.3
1.8% 4.2% 2.9%
0.2%
0.3% 90.6% 11.8%
3.0
1.5% 96.2% 109.3
2.0% 3.2% 2.3%
0.3%
0.3% 91.7% 12.3%
3.0
Segments
Gr 5
Sample
Aug
Dec
Apr
Words
Ortho
Error
0.5%
0.3%
0.2%
Ortho
ErrorVis
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
Total
528.5
670.3
727.5
Deleted
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
Ortho
Error
1.2%
0.4%
0.1%
Honym
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
Apost
1.0%
0.3%
0.1%
Word
Correct
88.1%
94.2%
95.0%
Multimorph
18.5%
18.9%
22.6%
x segs/
word
3.5
3.4
3.6
Apost
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
Word
Correct
96.4%
98.0%
98.2%
Multimorph
14.8%
14.0%
15.5%
x segs/
word
3.3
3.2
3.2
Apost
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
Word
Correct
93.0%
96.8%
99.5%
Multimorph
15.2%
14.1%
13.8%
x segs/
word
3.2
3.2
3.1
Words
MOI
Error
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
Correct
98.8%
99.3%
99.3%
Total
136.0
190.4
173.7
Phon
Error
0.8%
0.1%
0.7%
Ortho
Error
1.8%
1.0%
0.6%
Segments
Ortho
ErrorVis
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
Ortho
Legal
2.1%
1.1%
1.0%
Ortho
Legal
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
Honym
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
Words
MOI
Error
1.1%
0.6%
0.0%
Correct
97.2%
98.7%
99.8%
Total
164.2
210.7
232.4
Phon
Error
0.9%
0.6%
0.2%
Ortho
Error
3.7%
1.2%
0.2%
Ortho
Legal
2.2%
1.1%
0.1%
Honym
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
Spelling Sensitivity Score
Segments, Words Scored Separately
1 point if phonologically represented
2 points if orthographically legal
3 points if spelled correctly
Interpreted Within Context of Length, Complexity
Time by Grade Follow-Ups
Results
Refined method…. This year (Year 3) teachers seem to be confident in
implementation
Reading Scores begin very high and tend to decrease gradually across grade levels;
Still within normal limits, but started above normal limits
Spelling Scores start much lower than associated reading scores; TWS-4 scores are
not declining since beginning study; however, they’re still not as high as current
reading scores
Cold writing samples in Grades 3-6 showed steady increase across year and across
grades when SSS-Segments are DV
KEY: Teacher Ownership and Investment
References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2000). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists with respect to reading
and writing in children and adolescents: Guidelines, and technical report. Rockville, MD: ASHA.
Apel, K. (1999). Checks and balances: Keeping science in our profession. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 30,
98-107.
Apel, K. (1999). An introduction to assessment and intervention with older students with language-learning impairments: Bridges
from research to clinical practice. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 30, 228-330.
Apel, K. (2004). Word study and the speech-language pathologist. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 11(3), 13-17.
Apel, K., Masterson, J.J., & Hart, P. (2004). Integration of language components in spelling: Instruction that maximizes students’
learning. In Silliman, E.R. & Wilkinson, L.C. (Eds.), Language and Literacy Learning in Schools. (pp. 292-315). New York: Guilford
Press.
Apel, K., & Masterson, J. J. (2001). Theory-guided spelling assessment and intervention: A case study. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in the Schools, 32, 182-195.
Apel, K., & Masterson, J. J. (2000). The ABC’s of spelling: Development, assessment, and intervention: Prologue. Topics in
Language Disorders, 20, (3), vi-viii.
References
Apel, K., Masterson, J. J., & Niessen, N.L. (2004). Spelling assessment frameworks. In A. Stone, E.R. Silliman, B. Ehren, & K.
Apel, (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Literacy: Development and Disorders. (pp. 644-660). New York: Guilford Press.
Apel, K., & Masterson, J. J. (1997). Child language-learning disorders. In T. A. Crowe (Ed.), Applications of Counseling in SpeechLanguage Pathology and Audiology (pp. 220-237). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
Apel, K. & Swank, L. K. (1999). Second chances: Improving decoding skills in the older student. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Servics in the Schools, 30, 231-242.
Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2000). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling
instruction. 2nd. Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Berninger, V., Nagy, W., Carlisle, J., Thomson, J., Hoffer, D., Abbott, S. & Johnson, C. (2003). Effective treatment for
dyslexics in grades 4 to 6: Behavioral and brain evidence. In B. Forman (Ed.), Preventing and treating reading disability: Bringing
science to scale (pp. 382-417). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Carlisle, J. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 169-190.
References
Carlisle, J. F. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement. In Feldman, L. B. (Ed.), Morphological aspects
of language processing (pp. 189-209). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Catts, H.W., Fey, M.E., Zhang, X, & Tomblin, J.B. (2001). Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in kindergarten
children: A research-based model and its clinical implications. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 32, 38-50.
Catts, H.W., & Kamhi, A.G. (Eds.). (1999). Language and reading disabilities. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Graham, S., Harris, K.R., & Troia, G.A. (2000). Self-regulated strategy development revisited: Teaching writing strategies to
struggling writers. Topics in Language Disorders, 2, (4), 1-14.
Cramer, R.L. (1998). The Spelling connection: Integrating reading, writing, and spelling instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Ehri, L.C. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: Two sides of a coin. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 3, 19-36.
Ganske, K. (2000). Word journeys. Guilford Press: New York
Glenn, P. & Hurley, S. (1993). Preventing spelling disabilities. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 9, 1-12
References
Graham, S. & Harris, K. (1999). Assessment and intervention in overcoming writing difficulties: An illustration from the selfregulated strategy development model. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 30, 255-264.
Hasbrouck (1998). Reading fluency: Principles for instruction and progress monitoring. Professional Development Guide.
Austin, TX: Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts, University of Texas at Austin.
Hasbrouck, J. E., Ihnot, C., & Rogers, G. H. (1999). "Read Naturally": A strategy to increase oral reading fluency. Reading
Research and Instruction, 39(1), 27-18.
Henry, M. (1990). Words. Integrated decoding and spelling instructions based on word origin and word structure. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Hewitt, L. (2000). Does it matter what your client thinks? The Role of theory in intervention: Response to Kamhi. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools. 31, 186-193.
References
Hughes, M. & Searle, D. (1997). The violent E and other tricky sounds: Learning to spell from kindergarten through grade 6.
York, Maine: Stenhouse Publ.
Hulme, C. & Joshi, R. M. (Eds.) (1998). Reading and spelling: Development and disorders (pp. 113-126). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Kamhi, A. G., & Hinton, L. (2000). Explaining individual differences in spelling ability. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 3, 3749.
Kelman, M. & Apel, K. (2004). The effects of a multiple linguistic, prescriptive approach to spelling instruction: A case study.
Communication Disorders Quarterly, 25, 2, 56-66.
Masterson, J. J., Apel, K., & Wood, L. A. (2002). Technology and literacy: Decisions for the new millennium. In K. G. Butler &
E. R. Silliman (Eds.), Speaking, listening, reading, and writing in children with language learning disabilities. (pp. 273-293). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Masterson, J. J., & Apel, K. (2000). Spelling assessment: Charting a path to optimal intervention. Topics in Language Disorders,
20, (3), 50-65.
Masterson, J, J., Apel, K. & Wasowicz, J. (2002). SPELL: Spelling Performance Evaluation for Language & Literacy. Learning By
Design, Inc., Evanston, IL.
Masterson, J. J., & Crede, L. A. (1999). Learning to spell: Implications for assessment and intervention. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in the Schools, 30, 243-254.
References
Mehta, P., Foorman, B.R., Branum-Martin, L., & Taylor, P.W. (205). Literacy is a unidimensional construct: Validation, sources
of influence, and implications in a longitudinall study in grades 1 to 4. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 85-116.
Moats, 2000 Speech to Print: Language Essentials for Teachers Paul Brookes Publishing
Moats, L.C. (Winter 2005/2006). How spelling supports reading (and why it is more regular than you may think. American
Educator, 12-43.
Montgomery, D.J., Karlan, G.R., & Coutinho, M. (2001). The effectiveness of word processor spell checker programs to
produce target words for misspellings generated by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16
(2).
Nation, K., & Hulme, C. (1997). Phonemic segmentation, not onset-rime segmentation, predicts early reading and spelling
skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 154-167.
Richards, T.L., Aylward, E.H., Berninger, V.W., Field, K.M., Grimme, A.C., Richards, A.L., & Nagy, W. (2006). Individual
fMRI activation in orthographic mapping and morpheme mapping after orthographic or morphological spelling treatment in child
dyslexics. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 19, 56-86
Scott, C. (2000). Principles and methods of spelling instruction: Applications for poor spellers. Topics in Language Disorders,
20, 3, 66-82.
Singer, B. D. & Bashir, A.S. (1999). What are executive functions and self-regulation and what do they have to do with languagelearning disorders? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 30, 265-273.
References
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.
Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-401.
Stanovich, P.J., & Stanovich, K.E. (2003). Using research and reason in education: How teachers can use scientifically based research to make
curricular and instructional decisions. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: RMC Research Corporation.
Stone, A., Silliman, E.R., Ehren, B., & Apel, K. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of Language and Literacy: Development and Disorders. New
York: Guilford Press.
Templeton, S. (2002). Spelling: Logical, learnable and critical. The ASHA Leader, 7, 3, 4-5 and 12.
Treiman, R. & Bourassa, D.C. (2000). The development of spelling skill. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 3, 1-18.
Wasowicz, J., Apel, K. & Masterson, J. J. (2003). Spelling Assessment: Applying Research in School-Based Practice. Perspectives
on School-Based Issues Newsletter, 4(1), 3-7.
Wasowicz, J., Apel, K., Masterson, J.J., & Whitney, A. (2004) SPELL-Links to Reading and Writing. Evanston, IL: Learning By
Design, Inc.
Print Referencing
During Storybook Reading
with AtAt-Risk Preschoolers
Joan Kaderavek
University of Toledo
Laura Justice
Ohio State University
Predicting Reading Outcomes:
Decoding
Emergent writing (average r = .50 - .53)
Invented spelling, name writing
Alphabet knowledge (average r = .45)
Phonological awareness (average r = .44)
Oral language (average r = .38)
Print knowledge (average r = .46 - .52)
National Early Literacy Panel, 2004
Illustration of Risk
(Justice, Skibbe, & Bowles, 2006)
Assessment of print concepts for 128 3- to 5-year-old children
Examined performance as a function of socioeconomic status (SES) and
language ability (typical vs. impaired)
Four groups of children:
Typical language (TL), middle SES
Language impaired (LI), middle SES
Typical language (TL), lower SES
Language impaired (LI), lower SES
Print Concepts Examined
(Justice, Skibbe, & Bowles, 2006)
Comparison of Groups
on Print Concepts
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
111
94
89
90
Typical, Middle SES
LI, Middle SES
Typical, Low SES
LI, Low SES
Scores based on normal
curve, where M = 100,
SD = 15
Storybook Reading Intervention
Enhancements of the quality and/or the quantity of
storybook reading
Considerations:
Adult input
Text supplements
Genre/texts
Context (e.g., small vs. large group; home vs. school)
Illustration of Print Referencing Style
Implementing Print Referencing
Print becomes an explicit focus of conversation
Use print- salient books
Recruit the child’s attention and interest
Questions about print (Is that a D?)
Comments about sound (Those words rhyme!)
Track the print
Point to print
Efficacy Data Support Impacts
(Justice & Ezell, 2002)
Head Start participants (n=38)
Eight weeks of reading (3 sessions per week for 8 weeks)
Children randomly assigned to “print referencing” or “picture
focus” conditions
Readers integrated nine references to print or pictures into
each reading session
0.6
Gain Scores on
Five Measures:
Head Start Preschoolers
0.5
0.4
0.3
control
experimental
0.2
0.1
print
concepts
literacy
terms
print
recognition*
alphabet
knowledge*
concept of
word*
0
Effectiveness Study: At-Risk Sample
Project STAR
90 teachers randomly assigned to three conditions
Workshop training and 30-week book reading program
15 videos submitted by each teacher over 30 weeks
Coded for attention to print and storybook reading quality
Project STAR (2005-2009)
6 children randomly selected from each classroom (n = 540)
Comprehensive individualized assessment: fall & spring preK, K,
G1
Literacy
Language
Social skills and behavior
Kindergarten adjustment
Scope and Sequence: Project STAR
Sample Targets
Environmental Print: Discusses print embedded in
illustrations to supplement text
Metalinguistic Concept of Reading: Provides the meaning
behind the act of reading.
Page Order: Shows the order in which pages are read in a
book.
Author: Tells the job of an author.
Page Organization: Shows that reading occurs from the top
of the page to the bottom of the page.
Title of Book: Discusses the role of the title.
Print Direction: Shows that reading occurs from right to
left.
Adult Input: Reducing Support
High Support
Low Support
Model the Answer: Here’s the front of the
book. Where’s the front of the book?
Co-Participation: Let’s point to each word as
I read…we’ll do it together.
Give Choices: Does this word start with the
letter D or the letter S?
Recall: We read this word before. Do you
remember what this says?
Summary Comments
Children whose teachers referenced print showed accelerated growth on
three measures of print knowledge
Effects were seen over and above effects attributed to “business as usual”
storybook reading sessions
Print referencing can be easily implemented by professionals with little
training & is relatively inexpensive
Implementation of EBP must attend to fidelity of implementation
An aspect of EBP that has been relatively ignored