Analysis:
Case Study
JENNA SARGENT, KIM CARON,
SHANDRA LOCK, MARGARET PAWLOWSKI
Demographics
Name: M.O.
Sex: Female
Birthday: 04-02-07
Age: 8 years old
Grade: 1st
Identified disability: Other Health Impairment (related to inattention and impulsive
behavior) and Speech & Language Impairment (related to articulation and
receptive/expressive language)
Pertinent Information: Foster Care due to inconsistent schooling; repeating the 1st
grade
M.O. will formulate complete grammatically correct sentences using past tense
verbs, past copula was, third person singular s, possessive/reflexive pronouns,
and negative forms 70% of the time.
M.O. will formulate complete grammatically correct questions using is, do/does,
where, and why 70% of the time.
M.O. will pass in program math tests, every ten lessons, at 80% accuracy or
better.
Hallidays Functions
Whole Group Interaction (18:1)
Regular education classroom during a social studies lesson about the American flag and the
Pledge of Allegiance.
The teacher called on each student individually, except M.O.
M.O. did not use any language functions during the whole group interaction.
Hallidays Functions
Small Group Interaction (3:1)
LD classroom during a reading lesson using guided reading book, The Fat Fox and His
Brother.
This lesson was very fast paced and drill-based.
Hallidays Functions
One-on-one Interaction (1:1)
Speech classroom during intervention targeting // and using is/are subject verb agreement
flashcards.
M.O. used the interactional, informative, and imaginative functions most frequently.
Interactional: Thump thump thumpety thump.
With both hands. Thump thump thumpety thump.
Informative: Your phone is ringing.
They are barking.
Imaginative: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y and Z in a sing-song
voice
U O P Q X Y Z in a sing-song voice
Classroom Discourse
Context:
1st Grade Classroom (18 students: 1 adult)
Circle Time on the Carpet
Social Studies Lesson about the American Flag & the Pledge of
Allegiance
Observed Initiation/Response/Feedback Model
Language was very directive
The classroom discourse inhibited the students language by:
asking a lot of questions; assessing recall, rather than teaching
child was not provided with opportunities to share her own
thoughts
Interview Settings
The interview with the teacher took place in the classroom at a small table (1:1).
The interview with the SLP took place in her office (1:1).
The interview with the LD teacher took place in her classroom at a small table
(1:1).
Themes
Theme #1:
Theme #2:
Theme #3:
Theme #4:
Theme #5:
Theme #6:
Theme #7:
Theme #8:
Collaboration
SLPs must work in partnership with others (general education
teachers, reading specialists, special education teachers) to meet
students needs.
Curricular Analysis
Social Studies A Childs View
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt School Publishers
The lesson used in the classroom during observation was titled, I pledge Allegiance.
Curricular Analysis
The textbook was examined using the Common Core Standards for the
State of WI at the 1st grade level.
The textbook provides many scaffolds that support the standards
Images
Different sizes, colors, and fonts
Continuity between lessons
However, many of the CCS cannot be illustrated using this text
alone.
Example: Explain major differences between books that tell stories and
books that give information, drawing on a wide range of text types
Text:
Each star stands for one of the states in our
country
Text:
Assessment
Need for a comprehensive assessment that includes standardized
testing, as well as looking at language use in the home and school,
and exposure to meaningful instruction and text.
Children and their environments must be assessed in order to diagnose
an impairment of the internal mechanisms responsible for language
development (Hoff & Tian, 2005).
Assessment
Assessments need to address many different areas involved in language, including:
Working Memory: Working memory should be assessed to discover underlying factors that are not
seen through language assessment, to provide information on influences of language processing, and to
identify possible discrepancies within language (Boudreau & Contanza-Smith, 2011).
Phonological awareness: A childs ability to reflect
on language itself, specifically the sounds of
language and especially the phonemes, support the
child understanding of the logic of the written code (Yopp & Yopp, 2009)
Writing: Previous research has revealed that children with language impairment (LI) produce written
texts that have fewer words, syntax errors, and poorer organization, similar to their oral language
(Osborn, 2008)
Intervention
According to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) (2001), For those [SLPs]
working in schools, it is a requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that
intervention be relevant to the expectations of the general education curriculum.
Need for explicit modeling, direct explanations and re-explanations, invitations to participate in the
conversation, and verifying and clarifying student understandings (Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000).
Tharp (1994) stated, The critical form of assisting learners is through dialogue, through the
questioning and sharing of ideas and knowledge that happens in instructional conversations
To truly teach, one must converse, to converse is to teach (Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000).
For both typical students, and more especially for those with LLD, listing and defining words is
just not enough to get the words firmly implanted in their lexicon. They need to engage with
words repeatedly over several different occasions, both receptively and expressively, in
speech and in print, in a variety of experiences that intensify and expand knowledge of their
meaning (Paul, 2012).
Intervention
Six Principles of Word Learning
Principle 1: Frequency matters
Principle 2: Make it interesting
Principle 3: Make it responsive
Principle 4: Focus on meaning
Principle 5: Be clear
Principle 6: Beyond the word
(Harris et al., 2011)
The SLP will work with the teacher to develop classroom techniques to implement the standards and assist
with differentiated instruction for students who are at different proficiency levels across the standards
(ASHA)
Emergent literacy intervention is designed to ensure that successful transition of all young children from prereaders to readers, and endorses the integral involvement of SLPs in supporting all learners, including those
who are vulnerable for difficulties in such transitions (Kaderavek and Justice, 2004)
References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). (1991). A model for collaborative service delivery for students with language-learning disorders in the
public schools [Relevant Paper]. Available from www.asha.org/policy.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). (2001). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists with respect to reading and writing in
children and adolescents [Guidelines]. Retrieved from www.asha.org/policy.
Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R. D., Swanson, H. L., Lovitt, D., Trivedi, P., Shin-Ju, L., &Amtmann, D. (2010). Relationship of Word- and Sentence- Level Working Memory
to Reading and Writing in Second, Fourth, and Sixth Grade. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 41(2), 179-193. Doi.10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0002)
Boudreau, D., Costanze-Smith, A. (2011). Working Memory in Language Assessment & Intervention in Children {PowerPoint slides}. Retrieved from
http://www.asha.org/events/convention/handouts/2011/boudreau-costanzasmith/#_ga=1.151112890.246331706.1425939282
Halliday, M. (1969). Relevant models of language. In Power, B. & Hubbard, R. (2002). Language development: A reader for teachers. (pp. 49-53). Columbus, Ohio:
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Harris, J., Michnich Golinkoff, R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., (2011). Lessons from the crib for the classroom: How children really learn vocabulary. In S. B. Neuman and D. K.
Dickinson (Eds). Handbook of Early Literacy Research, (vol. 3, pp.94-65). New York: Guillford.
Hoff, E., & Tian, C. (2005). Socioeconomic status and cultural influences on language. Journal of Communication Disorders 2005, 38, 271-278.
References
Kaderavek, J.N. & Justice, L.M. (2004). Embedded-explicit emergent literacy interventino II: goal selection and implementation in the early childhood classroom.
Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2004/021)
Nippold, M. (2012). Different service delivery models for different communication disorders. Language Speech Hearing Services in Schools, 43, 117-120. doi:
10.1044/0161(2012/ed-02)
Osborn, L. (2008). Assessing Written Language in Children with Language Impairment {Handout} Retrieved from
http://www.asha.org/events/convention/handouts/2008/1654_osborn_lori/#_ga=1.200465382.979549416.1431366788
Paul, R. (2012). Language disorders from infancy to adolescence: Assessment and Intervention. 4th Ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Year Book.
Pinnell,G.(1985).Ways to look at the functions of childrens language. In Power, B. & Hubbard, R. (2002). Language development: A reader for teachers. (pp.110117). Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly. XXI. 360406.
Wilkinson, L.C., & Silliman, E.R. (2001, February). Classroom language and literacy learning. Reading Online, 4(7). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/
articles/art_indexasp? HREF=/articles/handbook/Wilkinson/index.html
Yopp, H. & Yopp, R. (2009). Phonological awareness is childs play! Young Children, 12-21.